In today s society, there exists a myriad of issues which, when discussed, tend to raise the temperature of the citizens proverbial blood. There are a handful of topics that always seem to escalate this temperature to the boiling point among individuals who earnestly participate in discussion, debate and argument. Some examples of such delicate subjects are the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. An issue that has in recent years, begun to command the intensity of the foregoing, is the acceptability of homosexuality in mainstream society. Until recently, homosexuality was considered strictly taboo. If an individual was homosexual, this revelation was considered a grave secret to be kept from all family, friends, and society at large. However, it seem that society has begun to accept this lifestyle by allowing same sex couples some of the rights afforded heterosexual couples. The idea of coming out of the closet has moved to the forefront of homosexual individuals when it used to be the exception. The Government of Canada has recently passed law making it illegal to discriminate against an individual s sexual preference. With this in mind, the government would then require all facets of society, including religious communities, to welcome the marriages, adoptions, and families of homosexuals as though they were in no way different from heterosexual ones. It seems unreasonable that such an authority be involved in legislating the acceptance of an identifiable group that behaves in a manner unbecoming of any moral, decent, and even moderately religious human being, when our society itself can offer no consensus on such a moral issue.
In order to conclude that the government is wrong by legislating, it must be shown that homosexuality is wrong as well. Many feel that such a lifestyle is acceptable so long as it is kept in the privacy of one s own home. However, all too often such activity seems to spill over into mainstream society as same sex couples are seen strolling the streets arm in arm, kissing, and even engaging in unsightly groping. Such behaviour is displayed proudly by homosexuals during their various equal rights marches. It seems analogous to lobbying for a new car while driving a Ferrari, no one will listen because they are all turned off by your actions. Often enough, homosexuals attempt to pick up straight members of their own sex, causing considerable uneasiness. Having to deal with a homosexual on such an insignificant occasion as buying bread, can easily make one s skin crawl, if not ruin one s day. The feminine voice, dress, coupled with their feminine movements, can provide considerable incentive to avoid such people. The foregoing details the general appearance of homosexuals. There are of course exceptions to this rule, and these members of the homosexual group are not quite as prevalent in every day life. It cannot be denied that viewing this activity will offend many, if not the majority of mainstream society. The allowance of homosexual activity, providing it is kept from the public eye, has for the most part failed in its initiative. Few straight people could truly say they have never been exposed to such moral erosion.
Such erosion becomes even more prevalent when the issues of adoption and marriage are considered. Even those homosexuals that do not parade about in joyous display of their sexuality are included in those wishing to become parents and spouses under the law.
The argument often heard is that homosexuals are not perverts, that the children they raise will be fine. They claim that homosexuality in and of itself does not make one an inherently poor parent. This seems quite ridiculous when you consider the issue from the child s point of view rather than that of the homosexual, whom would obviously be thrilled to raise a child. The child however, would grow up with his personality, lifestyle, and attitude being formed by homosexuals. The problem here is that such input from a decidedly unpopular point of view might not properly prepare the child for the world to come. Learning life through a homosexual s eyes can do little but cause future confusion for the child when he or she realizes that people are not always raised by same sex couples. These facts do not change when there is a single parent situation. Children will be confused when he or she notices other parents acting vastly different from their own. Moreover, with mainstream society being a collection of straight parents raising children, allowing homosexuals to raise children would leave the door open to unending ridicule and ostracizing of children at the hands of their peers. It seems quite cruel to allow children to experience such a troubling situation simply to appease the wishes of homosexuals.
The issue of marriage involving homosexuals is important as well. Although homosexuals rationalize that such unions are reasonable, and worthy of recognition, such adherence would only serve to undermine the entire essence of marriage. Marriages are unions of two people under God and the idea is that the two individuals will start a family and prosper. It can be said that several straight couples never have children, relegating them to the level of homosexual marriages in such a regard. The point lost in this argument is that at any time in the marriage, health permitting, the heterosexual couple could have children. If the homosexual couple wanted children, they would be out of luck unless they were able secure some kind of adoption. It does not seem that the paramount concern is having children in a marriage, but whether the couple involved could ever achieve the family status. Homosexuals simply cannot.
The next aspect of homosexuality to contemplate is that of its moral acceptability. The common argument against any moral intervention is that homosexual tendencies are something certain individuals are born with. It is quite difficult to accept such a claim when it is considered that so many people are born without such a genetic trait. For this argument to be valid, one would have to accept that every homosexual on the planet has been born into a pre-existing web of physiological short comings. This argument is clearly false when the element of choice is introduced. Over the years there have been several straight individuals who have become homosexual. For no apparent reason, they simply began living the gay lifestyle. If they were born with a predisposition, it is difficult to understand how or why any part of these individuals lives were spent as heterosexual. Of course it is possible that these people were always gay, but simply had not come to terms with their sexual orientation. However, the idea that homosexuality is genetic is weakened further when the foregoing is coupled with the fact that many gay individuals have become heterosexual. If one is destined to be homosexual from birth, how does that individual then cease all homosexual behaviour in favour of the heterosexual lifestyle? It seems clear that such change in behaviour over time can easily be attributed to a distinct choice. If it were a biological issue there would be no room for choice. It is not enough to suggest that these individuals were simply attempting to conform to society s expectations, as it would be difficult to find a heterosexual that would become gay if society deemed it correct.
With the said arguments in mind, it seems obvious that homosexuals are choosing a lifestyle that is inherently unnatural and immoral. One need not look far to realize that members of the same sex are not sexually compatible. The basic, fundamental function of human beings is reproduction. Homosexuals cannot possibly reproduce with their sexual behaviour in mind. If it is natural to reproduce, then the homosexual lifestyle which inhibits human reproduction must be, by definition, unnatural. Moreover, if homosexuality were in fact natural and reproduction ceased, the human race could not sustain itself by leaving the responsibility of future generations to homosexual individuals.
The final argument against homosexuality concerns its moral ramifications. Some might feel that no one has the right to tell another how to live. However, this seems absurd in that society needs some moral fabric holding it together. One need not be reminded of what the world would be like if everyone was permitted to behave as they please. Simply by considering the above arguments concerning the gay lifestyle, it seems clear that such activity has no place in a moral society. However, when society itself has eroded to the point where it is commonplace for children to bring guns to school, it does not seem reasonable to expect morality to be running rampant among individuals. What does seem reasonable is to consult some of the oldest writings known to man:
And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman.
It is a detestable thing (Leviticus 18:22).
The Bible itself, commonly know as God s Word, tells mankind that homosexuality is wrong. It seems difficult to imagine a greater authority than that of God. It seems clear that our own creator frowns heavily upon homosexuality. With this in mind, how then can the government consider legislating society into acceptance of a lifestyle that God has condemned?
The government has little place introducing legislation concerning the human rights of homosexuals for a number of reasons. Any legislation would gravely affect any society in which it is introduced and that society ought to have the ability to protect itself from what it deems inappropriate, wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Homosexuality is no exception, as it is such a personally charged issue that cannot be forced upon people. Accepting homosexuality as a human right is not akin to accepting the latest tax increase. It is an issue that sparks an ingrained feeling that is acquired through religion, observance, or some other avenue. Regardless, it exists, and acceptance of it should not arbitrarily be forced upon people by elected officials. Homosexuality is something that transcends the legislation process in that God, through the Bible, has already legislated for us. No government s proverbial measuring stick of what is right and wrong can possibly compare to that of our creator.
To conclude, it can be said that homosexuality is an issue unlike most others facing society, when the emotions it stirs are considered. The government would only serve an injustice to legislate homosexuality into the human rights laws. People should not have the right to offend others in public, raise children in a fashion detrimental to the child s mental health, have recognized marriages without the physiological capability of raising a family, behave in an unnatural manner that offends the moral codes of society and that of God. To allow such a right would allow individuals to choose which rights they have, and which ones they do not, therefore undermining the idea behind protection of human rights. Protection provides shelter from discrimination and scrutiny for aspects in life we cannot change such as age, gender, and race. Homosexuality simply does not qualify for such protection.