In Defense of Homosexuals

Having lived through the ’00s I’ve been exhausted with having to offer defense of a number of people who clearly don’t face any of the supposed self-control problems that have been leveled at them. All of the misgivings that people might launch at adulterers and philanderers have for one reason or another been leveled at a group of people who have sought nothing more than freedom of association. The moral traditions that decry homsexuality on account of its supposedly representing a poor moral choice miss the point entirely. Such moral dictates are blind to the biological realities that bind humans to their very existences, and we have every good reason to shun them. Some individuals’ being born without a definitive gender absolves homosexuals of any aspects of volition or free will, characteristics necessary to define sin in any context.

A Homosexual

The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts himself, although appointed by the conservative Bush administration, invested part of his own pro bono, professional stake in defending a case called Lawrence vs. Texas, a piece of litigation that granted American humans the humble right to engage in consensual sexual acts with other adults within the confines of their own bedrooms. Lawrence involved a man who had a warrant issued for his cocaine possession. When Texas police officers burst into his home and found him engaged in anal sex, they used that as an excuse to take him into custody. That apprehension eventually made its way up to the land’s highest court, and eventually said court decided that Americans’ sexual lives were no longer the subjects of physical intervention by the federal government. This was the so-called controversy that spawned the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton; as well as the larger gay marriage debate that defined national politics, particularly for the first half of the previous decade.

Sin is defined by an individual making a choice he, she or “re” understands to be incorrect. Biological realities mitigate any such considerations about homosexuals. One out of 2,000 live births is hermaphroditic, thereby lacking any specific gender. More explicitly, considerations must lie on individuals who lack any specific gender’s definitive genitalia. Some individuals are born with elongated clitorises; others without total scrotal development, naturally homologous to the development of the labia, without complete testicular development. Stigmatizing these individuals is akin to offering a similar treatment to sufferers of other predispositions, including Down syndrome. To wit, socially conservative American politicians, such as Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin, have built entire careers on the shoulders of the compassion they indeed exhibit toward their differently abled children, a compassion they do not care to show toward the hermaphrodite. Because of their own deeply rooted sexual hang-ups, they have substituted what should be compassion with hatred.

The very existence of hermaphroditism is key to understanding the underlying, vicious evil of homophobia and inevitably all who roundly condemn homosexuals. This physically exterior diversity, common to the human species, must obviously mirror a multitude of internal hormonal landscapes, which naturally must escape the reproach of volition or accusations of “sin.”