Morality of Homosexuality

This article is an extensive moral criticism of homosexuality (and its deriatives, lesbianism and bisexuality), both as a sexual behavior and orientation, whose goal is to establish that homophilic arguments are as ethically unsubstantiated as every other sexual deviance (e.g., pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, etc.). Of course, any homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual individual is welcome to respond to this article with constructive criticism instead of "dismissing it as bigotry," as many pro-LGBT academics (like John Corvino and Lisa Waldner) encourage them to.

The primary reason to shun homosexuality is because Allah has forbidden it and made it a sin. We, as humans, can't figure out the best way to conclude what is right and wrong with our subjective opinions, so we derive objective morals and values from Allah, our Creator Who knows what's best for us, by referring to His guidance as explained in Secular Morality. In Islam, we're obliged to follow the fact that homosexuality is an abhorrent act deserving of punishment, as explained in Prohibition of Homosexuality.

Homosexuality (and all of its deriatives for that matter) can never be backed up ethically, or even from a psychological standpoint since it's naturally repulsive and is more abhorrent than a bucket of maggots and rotting flesh. The action itself (anal penetration) stems from a huge lack of religious values, and perhaps it would be correct to say that the same liberal sexual ethics that justify homosexuality also justify rape, bestiality, and pedophilia, as was emphasized on Secular Morality.

Homosexuality is not just a moral violation as some might think, it's intended to be the culture of the world as it's one of the many central freedoms liberals hold, and this is what the pressuring lobbies are really keen on in the West. Especially on June (the "pride month"), you see the rainbow flag celebrated everywhere, attempts to make homosexuality a "forceful choice" for children when indoctrinating them in elementary schools, criminalization of any therapist trying to offer a homeopathic treatment for homosexuality, "pride" parades everywhere, SJWs and anarchist hacktivists targeting homophobia on the internet unlike any other forms of "discrimination," and even attempts to dye culture, art, and literature with homosexual perceptions that have never existed beforehand, all in a desperate attempt to reformulate and culturally colonize the world.

Strangely enough, homosexuals and their "allies" can't cease recycling the same justifications to prove that this immoral sexual inclination is valid, natural, and moral. This article will approach this issue by refuting the common moral arguments used to justify sodomizing others:

  1. Biological Determination
  2. Consent and Harmlessness
  3. Nature

1. Biological Determination ~

Some argue that "homosexuals were born that way"; that it's an embedded and unchangeable predetermined genetical instict that pushes one to have a sexual inclination to the same sex, and is therefore not a choice. In reality, this very argument is no more than an abandoned hoax supported by outdated pseudo-science; historically, the "gay gene" claim first emerged for political reasons back in the 80s to avoid falling foul of anti-sodomy laws in the U.S., which were back then very strict on the matter. When the right of states to criminalize sodomy was maintained in a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, homosexuals sought another route of legal protection by claiming to have a "minority status," which can only be proven if immutable qualities determine that status. In other words, the claim that homosexuals are just "born that way" in the same way that black, hispanic, disabled, and blue-eyed people are "born that way" would've enabled another moral and legal defence for consensual homosexual behavior as something "forced," "unchangeable," and "uncontrollable," thus making it seem that one couldn't be blamed for something that can't be helped. The strategic importance of this idea of ​was described in perfect detail by the two Harvard gay activists, Kirk and Madsen, who masterminded the modern homosexual propaganda tactics:

The public must be convinced that homosexuals are victims of circumstances, and that they choose their sexual orientation no more than they choose their height or skin color. [...] Publicly recognizing that homosexuality can be a choice, we open Pandora's box with the inscription moral choice and sin and give our opponents a stick for whipping. [...] For all practical purposes, homosexuals should be considered as if they were born that way, [...] and since they had no choice, homosexuality will be reprimanded no more than heterosexuality."

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen - After the Ball (p. 184)

Despite the fact that this argument is no longer needed to provide a legal or social argument for homosexuality in light of the recent legislative and social overhauls of the liberal society towards gay activism, it remains the core of the political rhetoric of the LGBT movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, the more intolerant people become convinced that homosexuals are "victims of circumstances," the more they will, out of pity, show the LGBT movement a gradual increase in tolerance. Secondly, the appeal to "lack of choice" and "hopelessness" allows them to successfully reflect the stigma of all anti-LGBT opponents, thus backlashing the criticism by portraying them as fierce mentally deranged misanthropists who suffer from a phobia of inclusivity and acceptance of others for "who they are," just like the white nationalists or any other racist group. Finally, this convenient conviction provides them a comforting release from guilt and responsibility for their immoral actions.

Anyhow, being a homosexual is actually a choice, it's not embedded into our genetics at all; countless peer-reviewed scientific studies have unequivocally proved the opposite to the claim that there exists a "gay gene":

In fact, even a multitude of countless statistics (primarily from pro-LGBT sources) attest to this by showing that sexual orientations are fluid and subject to change:

Perhaps if the claim that people are "born that way" and "it's genetic" was true, then the percentage of people who identify as "homosexual" would remain static all around the globe and throughout all generations. This isn't the case; countless statistics (as listed on Influences of Homosexuality) show that the Western society has more people with homosexual (or bisexual) tendencies than the East, and that the more people get younger, the more we see they've become homosexual, strongly emphasizing that this has a social influence through mind-altering environmental upbringings.

To further substantiate the obvious truth that homosexuality is culturally acquired, it's interesting to point out that different models of homosexual conduct have historically existed amongst different societies, and in each case they have a cultural origin, not a biological one. Had homosexuality been natural, it would have found uniform expression in all cultures and civilizations similar to normal (i.e., heterosexual) marriage, however the very concept of homosexuality is unheard of to many cultures. As for the variations in homosexuality, there's the Greek model in which older married men (who often also had mistresses) would act as mentors to young boys and train them to become men, and part of this process involved sodomizing them; at the appropriate age, the mentor would even find the young man a bride, then the mentor would find another boy and start the process all over again. There's the Melanesian model in Papua New Guinea, found only amongst a minority of tribes, where men pass through three stages in their graduation to manhood; first, they undergo exclusive passive homosexuality where they are sodomized by older men, then exclusive active homosexuality where they sodomize younger boys, and finally, they practice exclusive heterosexuality by getting married. These stages were considered to be part of a developmental process, and all homosexual activity had to stop when the third level had been reached; it was considered abhorrent beyond this point. The modern Western model, based on liberal sexual ethics, is way different from the previous models in which homosexuality was institutionalized; it has exclusive homosexuality between adults over the age of consent, mostly of equal status, and also a significant interest in young post-pubertal teenagers, as far as legally allowed in Western countries. It's claimed in this model that this behaviour is intrinsic and innate, and it's also highly politicized, thus this model is unique in the sense that it has appeared and spread too rapidly for it to have been produced genetically.

This is clear undeniable evidence that external environmental and social factors play the determining role in sexual lifestyle choices and behaviors, and this fact is accepted by quite an important share of homosexual activists and pro-LGBT scientists who consider themselves "queer by choice," dismissing the "gay gene" as a propagandist narrative that shames and silences the rights of people to choose and adapt to their sexual orientations, so it's therefore conclusively fallacious (and even discriminatory against a large portion of the LGBT community) to propagate the fraudulent claim of a "gay gene."

It's of high importance to be alert as well for all forms of academic propaganda and scientific studies which are used to deceive the public in this matter; homosexuals are academically active to falsify established biological facts, but the "evidence" is just a stream of zeros stacked together. For example, the gay biologists Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay, and Anne Fausto Sterling altogether tried to prove that gays are born that way by making up a fraudulent claim about the "Xq28 chromosome," yet their efforts were in vain as the biologists William G. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets published another study in 1999 on one of the most reputable scientific magazines, Science, and they couldn't find a single scientific explanation for homosexuality's "innate nature" while the "Xq28 chromosome" fraud was examined.

While it's true that there's not a single serious researcher in the scientific community who would dare to claim that a biological condition of same-sex attraction exists, at best, some researchers "believe" that multifactorial causation of sexual orientation may include a biological component that far away from that to be decisive, and thus the concept of "innate homosexuality" doesn't represent actual scientific knowledge, but a political ideology and rhetorical ruse of gay activists; illogical, fictitious, and unscientific. In fact, Lawrence Mayer (an expert in dozens of state trials and regulatory hearings, including on the side of the LGBT community) and Paul McHugh's Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences meta-analysis from 2016 inspected all relevant studies, and concluded that the "biological determination" arguments are null and void because they find absolutely no confirmation in science.

It's also important to note that even if a "gay gene" exists, the argument from that is fallacious and invalid in of itself, first and foremost; scientifically, it's impossible for there to be "clusters of genes that cause homosexual behavior," because no gene can force a creature to commit anything by itself. Molecular biologists familiar with gene activation, expression, and functioning will understand this well; just as there's no specific gene or collection of genes that cause a person to smoke, play football, or give charity, there's likewise no specific collection of genes which cause a man to find pleasure in sodomy. A gene is neutral, it's naught but a set of letters that represent nitrogenous bases within the genetic code, and whenever a part of this gene is decoded, functional proteins begin to appear; with behavior, one activates a certain gene and shuts off another. The relationship between the genes and behaviors is a synchronic relationship, not a causative relationship.

The problem with homosexuals who majoritarily rely on the "gay gene" propaganda to justify sodomy is that they don't understand that behaviors directly influence the genes and not vice versa, and that there even exists a scientific field dealing with the issue of behavioral and environmental influences on how the genes work (i.e., epigenetics), but at best, genes may play a small role in influencing certain behaviors or emotions in some people which when coupled with external cues, social circumstances, and certain life experiences predispose them to being susceptible to same-sex attraction more so than others who also have the same feelings and behavior, yet never go on to develop such a disposition. Nothing here denies that genetics may influence these behaviors in some way; certain homosexuals, due to their genetic makeup, might be more at risk of falling into homosexual behavior when placed under certain environmental factors, and thus might be more prone to becoming homosexual when exposed to such influences in their lives, so it's not the genes, it's the external cues. Even this doesn't amount to evidence that homosexuality is genetic or biologically determined, contrary to the exaggerated claims of homosexual activists.

Now, even if this genetic argument is true, what in the world makes this "embedded instict" unchangeable? Humans have very strong psychological instincts such as hunger, anger, boredom, lung capacity, phobias, sexual urges, and self-preservation. They're deeply embedded and extremely strong, yet we're still able to control and adapt these instincts. If it's argued that homosexuality is a "deeply ingrained instinct," then it follows the fact that it's changeable, adaptable, controllable, and responsive to training and therapy. This fact directly forces the gay activists to legally enforce the prevention of sexual reorientation therapy centers on the basis of "homophobia," and most therapy centers are now illegal in many parts of the world, especially in Canada and Spain.

Let's say that "genes enforce someone's behaviors," for sake of argument; if something is "genetically determined" it doesn't point out that it's right (i.e., justified, substantiated, correct, valid, moral, ethical, etc.); there exist multiple claims that crime, pedophilia, and alcoholism have all been recorded as genetically present, so does that justify one being a pedophile? Why is it that the conduct of sodomy is genetically forced upon a homosexual yet homicide is not forced upon a serial murderer? Why is it that society and science altogether shun alcoholism as a mental disorder but completely embrace homosexuality when one is recorded to be even more genetical (50%) than the other (8%-25%)? I, as a male person with human inclinations, have never even thought nor found special pleasure in drinking alcohol, being a murderer, nor a pedophile, even though I might possibly have the alcoholic, criminal, or pedophilic genes. If I was exposed to a society where alcohol, crime, and pedophilia is rampant and is the norm (like homosexuality currently is), these genes may make me more prone to finding pleasure in these actions than the average person, but they won't force me to do that.

Some gay people say that even though there may not exist any gay genes, there exists a "biological relationship between pre-natal hormone exposure and brain anatomy with homosexuality." This is false; there's not a single convincing study as of yet proclaiming that. The reason why this argument gets brought up is because a genetic cause has already been conclusively disproven, thus homosexual academics embark upon other avenues to help establish any biologically-related cause to support their propaganda efforts.

Bad news is that the brain structure has a high degree of plasticity (i.e., it's constantly changing due to personal experiences), thus, even if we accept for argument's sake that "homosexual brains" are noticeably different to "heterosexual brains," that would be a result of years of conditioning and adaptation with repeat thinking patterns and behaviors, similar to "taxi driver brains," as the study shows. This establishes an environmental cause for the difference, not a fundamentally biological one. In fact, it's scientifically proven that a "pedophile brain structure," along with a "transsexual one," differ fundamentally from the brain structure of others due to this plasticity. That wouldn't be much convincing to give a moral explanation for pedophilia and transsexuality.

How many times have we heard that "love is love" and that "it's a consensual act that doesn't affect nor harm you or anyone involved"? So is the golden moral standard of homosexuality, but in reality if we examine morality carefully we'll notice that the moral permissibility of an action doesn't depend solely on consent and the harm principle, as explained in Secular Morality > 3. Consent, since this logic would permit worse things like incest, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, cannibalism, and much more.

Surely one may object to what I wrote in my article about consent by pointing out that children and animals can't give "informed" consent. Albeit it's true that people who have limited cognition can't possibly give informed consent (i.e., children, animals, intoxicated, disabled, mentally ill, or deaf and blind people, etc.), this would mean that homosexuals can't give informed consent as well. The desire to engage in anal sex is no different than the desire to eat plastic for enjoyment, as Dr. Robert Kinney states on his study, both of which can be categorized as a cognitive defect:

Same-sex attraction disorder's mentally disordered nature follows from that physical disorderliness. The desire to partake in such activity is a disordered desire. Desires occur at the level of thought; that is, desires occur at the "mental" or "psychological" level, and hence, a habitual or "connatural" desire to perform physically disordered actions (such as the desire to eat plastic or engage in homosexual sex) could be properly labeled a mental disorder, in my opinion.

Objections to Dr. Kinney's Article (p. 200)

Point of fact; informed consent contradicts the homosexual lifestyle since homosexuals constantly propagate misinformation and censor the fact that this conduct correlates with higher rates of promiscuity, crippling porn addiction, violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, and deviant sexual behavior with rates way higher than that of heterosexuals under any group despite making up only an insignificant 2-3% of the entire population. Homosexuals also definitely don't want to inform anyone about all the harmful physical outcomes of such an act (as listed on Harms of Homosexuality), and of course, let alone the mental issues that this behavior creates upon the minds of such people, which are by the way rarely even caused by discrimination on grounds of sexuality (i.e., "homophobia" and "heterosexism"), thus wasting lots of medical and therapeutic resources on easily preventable mental plights.

The censorship of this information is rampant and the efforts to criminalize these statistics and rule out them out as "disinformation" on the internet are even more of an effort, but that's quite expected; pro-LGBT scientist Lisa Waldner states in a scientific study that the domestic abuse phenomena in the homosexual sphere is censored due to an "insecurity of inferiority":

Even gay and lesbian advocates who work hard to overcome homophobia and heterosexism, would rather not call attention to the problem of gay/lesbian domestic violence (Merrill, 1996), which includes sexual victimization. Elliot (1996) suggests that gay/lesbian domestic violence is kept "in the closet" to avoid providing the straight majority with evidence of the alleged "inferiority" of gay and lesbian relationships.

Lisa Waldner - Lesbian and Gay Sexual Coercion (p. 140)

Someone might come over and say: "Why bother by limiting the freedom of what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Where's the harm in letting them be and enjoy whatever they want?" This argument is a weak grasping at straws, because it dismisses an obvious sociological fact; what people believe in their private lives, or do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, does indeed affect others and gradually transforms all of society. This is why Islam seeks to exercise control over what people believe and what they do in their bedrooms.

This argument would've worked if "giving homosexuals freedom to do or believe what they want in the privacy of their own bedroom" doesn't gradually lead to a complete social revolution, enforced state laws and educational programs encouraging non-heterosexual forms of gender and sexuality from early childhood, skyrocketing LGBT identity, and a huge wave of stigmatization, marginalization, and a destructive collapse of marriage and family life. Immorality should not be given permission to do in privacy; it will soon turn to publicity, and when they gain global control, they won't actually mind invading your privacy when it's their turn to do so. People should never be given an authorization to do or believe in immorality, even privately; this defeats the meaning of "morality" and "ethics."

3. Nature ~

Homosexuals argue that there exist vastly documented compilations of observed instances of homosexual conduct amongst various animal species, therefore "there is no fixed sexual conduct," and that "homosexuality is a natural behavior." Surely, this proves nothing more than the fact that homosexuals behave like animals. In fact, other common (and "natural") behaviors present in animals include murder, rape, cannibalism, child sacrifice, coprophagia, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, nudity, theft, and infanticide. Using the evolutionary argument to justify an action is fallacious in of itself, as pointed out in Secular Morality > 4. Evolution, because man is not an animal.

Really now, there exist many sexual practices other than sodomy amongst animals which can equally be treated as "natural" and prone to adoption. The male porcupine drenches his potential female lover in urine at high velocity; she then would expose herself and allow the male to mount. The praying mantis engages in sexual cannibalism; the unfortunate male who seduces the female may make her very hungry after the act, and she begins snacking straight away, starting with his head while he's still copulating with her. The female black widow spider and her hundreds of children also engage in sexual cannibalism; the female seduces the male spider into sexual intercourse then she along with her children altogether feast on the male lover right after copulation. The dolphins, as well, are unironically known as the "rapists of the sea." Just because something happens in nature doesn't make it "natural" in the sense that it's moral, ethical, and acceptable to human beings. Perhaps this argument may make the gay people sound "acting like animals" more than "acting naturally."

Ironically, this argument has been refuted even by one of the most influential gay biologists, Simon LeVay, who wrote that a homosexual orientation seems to be a rarity in animals and shouldn't be given much attention in this regard; the estimated amount of species on earth is said to be around 8.7 million (even though this statistic is a big underestimation). If we use the 10 million figure, then the perceived homosexual behavior that makes up to 2,000 species (which is a generous and overestimated figure since homosexual researchers are obviously impartial on this matter) would only amount to a mere 0.02% occurrence of perceived homosexual behavior across all species. Given that homosexuals are said to make up around 2% of the human population, this would mean that homosexuality is around 100 times rarer in the animal world than in the human world. That hardly makes it "natural," at least not as "natural" as rape.

In fact, the homosexual behavior present in animals isn't actually done for sexual lust and desire, opposed to what homosexuals do. It's either done as a declaration of domination and control over possessions (e.g., the nastiest fights over food have been witnessed among bonobos and chimpanzees, as they could go as far as to murder others then have homosexual relations with their dead corpses), a problematic perturbation in their sense of smelling that causes their recognition of whether an animal is male or female to be confused (mostly as a consequence of the usage of pesticides and chemicals), or most commonly, a biological mutilation of bodily functions (also mostly caused by pesticides and chemicals). We quote here, as an example, a study about the chemical demasculinization of male African clawed frogs:

The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. [...] The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Atrazine-exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. 10% of the exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs. Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility.

Tyrone B. Hayes - Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Abstract)

Even from the point of view of the animal, perceived homosexual behavior isn't homosexual behavior (i.e., "same-sex attraction") to them; dogs, for example, are often seen mounting objects such as tables, sofas, or even humans of either sex when sexually excited. This indicates that animals are way more easily stimulated and that their sexuality is less sophisticated because they, unlike humans, have not the same capacity to reason and think, thus they will not perceive their own actions as being "homosexual." Therefore, there exist no homosexual inclinations in animals, or at least in the way that humans comprehend as a sexual orientation.

The dilemma here is that, even if evolutionarily interpreted, homosexuality still makes no sense; homosexuality, as we know, is a product of the non-believing atheist who doesn't affirm the religious rulings that rule out homosexuality as immoral in most religions. Since the atheist rejects religion, he's forced to believe in the theory of evolution as the origin of life and as a foundational cornerstone for atheistic liberal and secular societies. However, homosexuality can't even be reconciled with natural selection and is not equivalent to heterosexuality which is a permanent design feature ensuring the survival and continuity of humanity; leaving a hundred homosexuals on a remote island will lead them to die out within just one generation, showing that this practice conflicts with the idea of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution and the concept of the "survival of the fittest." Thus, promotion of homosexuality and belief in natural selection at the same time is illogical, an oxymoron or a contradiction, say. An exclusively homosexual lifestyle amongst a population will lead to inevitable extinction in the shortest amount of time (i.e., one generation) and the complete disappearance of their gene-pool. This is especially so when we come to realize that such a lifestyle is inseparable from practices which are of high-risk to health and longevity, like smoking and drug addiction.

A counter-argument which is presented by homosexual naturalists is that homosexuality is an "in-built population control mechanism and is part of the natural selection process." First, there is no evidence, nor will there ever be, that the practice of sodomy is determined by genes in the same way that skin, hair, and eye color are determined by genes, as we have established earlier. Second, with a bit of satire, perhaps this "population control mechanism" worked a little too well for the dinosaurs; the T-Rex, Stegosaurus, Diplodocus, and Triceratops all fell victim to the "gay gene" and became extinct due to excessive indulgence in non-reproductive anal sex over reproductive sex. Third, how and where does gene-awareness arise that the population is getting too large such that the "gay gene" is triggered and expressed in societies around the world to ensure a larger population of gays emerges from heterosexuals so that the growth rate of heterosexuals can be slowed down? Fourth, if we accept this and assert that the global population of homosexuals is say, 2%, that will still not keep the population in check in the long term, since the remaining 98% will continue reproducing at the same rate and any control effects will be wiped out after a generation or two. Fifth at last, this argument is clearly illogical and works against those making use of it; since male homosexuals cannot engage in reproductive sex but only anal intercourse, their ability to pass on their alleged "gay genes" is compromised, thus they will simply die out in one generation. Heterosexuals on the other hand will continue reproducing, thus, rather than being a "population control mechanism," the alleged "gay gene" should be more accurately characterized as an in-built "self-extinction mechanism."

Turning the same argument on its head, homosexuals can't reproduce. Since all known species reproduce, then homosexuality can't be natural. If homosexuality is natural, then it's also natural that homosexuals are not meant to have children. It's therefore, in the "theory of evolution" paradigm, unnatural to allow homosexuals to adopt children because "nature" did not intend them to have children. Even if there truly is a gay gene, a gay brain structure, or gay hormones, then it's unnatural for sodomists to acquire children because they weren't designed to have any; their genes, brains, or hormones led them to be oriented towards anal intercourse instead of reproductive intercourse.