The hypocrisy of homosexuality

CLYDE PILGRIM

HOMOSEXUALITY IS self-contradictory and self-condemnatory because it is based on moral relativism which cannot be universally and consistently upheld. Without universal moral absolutes, there would be no basis for right and wrong in general, inclusive of regarding paedophilia and rape as wrong.

Without truth there can be no natural justice and equity; without natural justice and equity there can be no rule of law, without the rule of law there can be no order and peace.

Without all of the above to some significant degree, society degenerates into chaos that leads to tyrannical totalitarianism — self-destruction. Moral absolutes are self-authenticating and universally held standards by all cultures and historical civilisations which are implanted in human consciences by the Creator.

Even when these spiritual and moral laws embodied in the Ten Commandments, or the moral expression of them in civil laws, are transgressed, it is evidence of their validity as reflected in the guilt that homosexuals are trying to deal with by seeking to seduce or force societies, by specious “scientific” and “human rights” arguments, to legalise their unholy, undignified, unhealthy and unsustainable conduct as morally, socially and legally acceptable. If homosexual behaviour globally became the only sexual behaviour, it would result in genocide.

Regarding civil society and the State, the foundational issue is that of constitutional jurisprudence, not whether religious values and moral laws should be included in our civil legislation because the fact is that our legislation has been historically based on Judeo-Christian and specifically scriptural Protestant Reformation evangelical Presbyterian (Westminster) and Baptist values, principles and procedures. (In fact, the societal legal codes of all historical civilisations are based on religious, that is, metaphysical and moral principles).

Simple scientific biological facts indicate that the bodies of males or females are not designed for sexual intercourse with the same gender but rather with the opposite gender. Male and female genders have different genetic information and this is manifested in their different anatomy, physiology and psychology. Anal sex is much riskier for the spread of STIs (sexually transmitted infections), inclusive of HIV/Aids. While heterosexuals ought not to engage in the risky practices of anal sex, male homosexuals are primarily restricted to such practices, and are more likely to have multiple partners which is another significant risk factor.

Prof Brendon Bain has indicated that statistical data does not scientifically support the position that decriminalisation of homosexuality would necessarily lead to significantly reduced risks for the spread of STIs, particularly HIV/Aids, among male homosexuals..

God designed sex between one adult man and one adult woman within the lifelong covenant boundaries of marriage as a loving bond for pleasure and satisfaction, partnership, procreation and parenting for His glory, the good of His elect and the common good.

The institution of marriage and family possesses private elements but is primarily public in its nature, impacts and regulation; hence unnatural sex should be regulated by the criminal law, since homosexual marriages would undermine the moral foundation and fabric of society.

Based on those morally relativistic principles, why should not marriage be further redefined to include multiple partners of different genders, legalised paedophilia and incest, and legalised bestiality and marriage to animals as members of the evolutionary family?

Without proper religious, historical, scientific or moral justification, dissenters are branded as homophobic, bigoted, unjust, inequitable and hateful. The greatest casualty in this unwarranted attack on biblical, historical and traditional marriage is truth.

Instead of repenting of their hedonistic idolatry, many homosexuals choose to surrender to the darkness and call it “light” and “love.

Like many other heterosexual sinners, homosexuals choose “to suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” thus manifesting self-deception, hypocrisy, denial of reality, heterophobia, unresponsibility and a shameless lack of accountability (Romans 1).

This is not a civil human rights or protected class issue since biological “race” is not generally changeable or a moral issue; and homosexuals have normal protections under the common law. To establish homosexuals as a special protected constitutional class would undermine freedom of religion and conscience and freedom of expression.

The heterophobic global lobby is seeking to radically redefine gender metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and ethics, regarding sexuality, and marriage and family, in a narcissistic and idolatrous grab for power, pleasure and prestige at all costs.

The evidence is already increasing in North America and Europe that the homosexual sect will not be satisfied with mere civil tolerance of their lifestyle but want approval and conformity of society so that at least we all must become philosophical homosexuals.