"All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. ...There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity."
-St. John Chrysostom
Being unkind or unmerciful is one thing, but approving of or turning a blind eye to a morally permissive philosophy of life is another. The passions create a madness in the mind, a narrowing and blindness of the intelligence. Homosexualism is extremely perverse, and one reason is because it acts like a gateway to the most perverse philosophy of life: Morality as determined by feelings. Without this leg to stand on, there is no meaningful justification of homosexualism. Heterosexuality is not itself rooted in feelings, but in being in principle reproductive, even if particular acts do not result in child-bearing. Homosexuality is in principle anti-reproductive. Dividing sex from reproduction, as is done via a philosophy of homosexuality, and also of contraception, gives the false impression that sex is not fundamentally about being reproductive, but about giving and receiving pleasure.
What are some core assumptions of LGBTQ advocacy?
1. That feelings dictate what ought to be so.
For example, one can hear it said that they have homosexual desires, and that these desires mean they ought to both have and act on them, and that others should agree that they should have and act upon them.
2. That feelings (especially sexual feelings) are in a certain sense sacrosanct, and thus should not be challenged.
For example, one can hear it said that gay people are "born" that way, and that to challenge their feelings is to challenge their personhood and even their very existence.
3. That feelings (especially sexual feelings) dictate "who" a person is, that the presence of a desire implies what is “authentic” to a person.
In other words, sexuality and sex acts are not chosen, but are ontologically compelled or determined via the presence of desire, or that the desire itself is the direct manifestation of one’s unique, authentic personhood. This sentiment is expressed in statements such as, "I am gay," or "I am straight." The presence of certain attractions and desires is taken to mean that one "is" the ontological expression of that desire; that a person is what they are attracted to; that attractions determine or reveal identity.
4. That sexual passions are morally neutral.
For example, one can hear that what a person does in private is not anyone's business. Or, that one is free to do what they want (always with the proviso: as long as it doesn't hurt anyone). Like walking down the street, playing guitar, or joining a gym, sex acts have no intrinsic morality attached to them.
5. That an extreme negative response to a challenged feeling paradoxically amounts to a justification of the feeling.
For example, one can hear such statements as these: Kids with homosexual desires get depressed because they are told their feelings are wrong, are sometimes bullied, and sometimes even kill themselves, therefore it is wrong to maintain that their behavior is wrong. Or, kids with homosexual desires get depressed and lack self-esteem when they are told their desires are wrong, therefore homosexuality is authentic to them.
6. Lastly (though not exhaustively), that people ought to be free to "love" whoever they want.
In other words, love and sex are of such a nature that if one cannot have sex with that person, then they cannot love them.
Rather, in contradiction to the above, we are made in God's image, and, born fallen, we find ourselves immersed in the madness of all types of passions which distort the clarity of our vision. In the Name of Christ we are called to crucify all of our passions, all the lusts of the flesh, including same sex lust.
What we can observe generally from the enumerated items above is how interdependent and flimsy they are. Each carries certain basic false assumptions. These false assumptions need repeatedly to have light shined on them so that the cockroaches of error can be forced to scatter. Getting those who are deluded by these assumptions to acknowledge them is almost impossible. Having no accountability to truth they willfully persist in the idea through the force of emotion. They get angry, they accuse, they have breakdowns, but they rarely think the issue through from first principles because the commitment to this belief is sub-rational and ideological. It is not born of moral reasoning. Taking them in turn:
1. That feelings dictate what ought to be so; not even they agree with this. If personal feelings dictated what ought to be so, then logically the feeling that they are wrong would be equally valid. Since it is not so, one can understand that this is not moral relativism. It is their feelings, and the personal feelings of those they agree with, which are considered valid and binding for society. This ends in a sort of feeling-to-power mentality which pits the might of their right feelings against their opponent's wrong feelings. It is true simply because they want it to be so. What ought to be clear, however, is that none of this amounts to a rational justification for homosexuality. Are all feelings of anger, attraction for another's property, or laziness equally treated as oughts simply because the feelings are present? No. If all feelings do not get an automatic free pass, then clearly in their case sexual feelings are given special, preferential treatment.
2. That feelings are sacrosanct and shouldn't be challenged is another assumption, a cousin to the previous. It treats the challenging of a feeling as a type of violence against the person. It is a double standard, for the feeling that something is right or wrong is exactly what they both promote and resist. They say not to challenge their feeling and yet they challenge the feeling of others. They say don't say their feelings are wrong while saying their opponents feelings are wrong. It is a simple case of hypocrisy. If they are permitted to offer challenge, then they themselves ought to welcome challenge. It also confuses feelings with personal being, that to reject the legitimacy of a person's feelings is to reject the person's existence. This is a basic confusion which is persistent in this community, and it is the source of much accusation against their opponents, that their opponents are hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, etc., because by confusing personal feeling with personal being they hear all criticism as personal threat, and via their temper tantrums they seek to make themselves immune from further criticism. There is, however, nothing rational about arguing from feelings.
3. That feelings dictate who a person is is an ontological problem. Since feelings are not willed or chosen, by reducing personhood to feelings they strip mankind of fundamental intelligence and free will. If feelings dictate personhood, then one ought to be an alcoholic if one keeps feeling like drinking, or a glutton if one keeps feeling like eating, or an aggressor if one keeps feeling like fighting, for if feelings dictate personhood then logically whatever the predominant or abiding feeling is, then that is what ought to be done. Persistent feeling reveals authentic personhood, and authenticity to oneself means permission to act on feelings, and authenticity is the only certain virtue. That this is absurd ought to be clear, but what is important to note is the special pleading and blindness homosexualists have for their pet feeling. If it is a predominant and abiding feeling that they are wrong, then, if they are consistent, that they are wrong is equally as true as their abiding and predominant feeling that they are right. The policing of emotion is exactly what they decry, and yet that is exactly what they do. And yet, none of this amounts to an actual rational justification of homosexualism. The justification of attitudes and behavior is not merely based on the presence of feelings, therefore the fact that some people feel homosexual attraction is in no way a justification for them.
4. That sexual passions are morally neutral is another blatant contradiction, for if they were neutral, then they couldn't argue for their rightness. They couldn't say it is right to do it, only morally neutral, but if it is morally neutral, then even the presence of feelings wouldn't make it right, only right to obey the feeling. The rightness is shifted to obeying feelings, where the sexuality becomes incidental. But obeying feelings is a type of slavery, and is a confusion of human ontology and a denial of free will. Since feelings are not determined, they themselves do the determining. At this point there is no more argument for homosexuality in and of itself, just that feelings are the all-deciding factor. What is more, not all sexual passions are equally valid in their minds, only the ones they approve of. But in this philosophy nothing could trump obedience to feelings, and so they have destroyed the possibility of morality. At the same time, they assert that they are right, but the rightness is determined solely by feelings, where feelings opposed to them are treated as wrong. It is clear that every person agrees that people ought to control their feelings, and yet in this case they absurdly treat the presence of the feeling as right and good simply because it is there.
5. That a negative response to a feeling amounts to a rationale for that feeling, this is also ludicrous. If they believed that a person's committing suicide was determined by disapproval, then they would never disapprove of anything! They have made critique impossible. Are you sad that you can't have that candy? Well, according to this view that's the very reason you should have it, for otherwise you might kill yourself. A free-will act performed in response to being denied a persistent and abiding desire, to not have what one wants, is not justification for a moral.
6. That people ought to love whoever they want is a confusion between love and sex. Erotic love does not exhaust love, and sex founded on a passion is an objectification and demeaning of that person for the sake of the satisfaction of that passion. Parents love children, siblings love each other, friends love each other, coworkers love each other, and yet sex is not presupposed in these. Even husband and wife love each other when sex is not possible. Sex is simply not the same as love, and sex can and often does happen without love. Therefore, to say one ought to love whoever they want is true, but that in no way implies they should have sex with whoever they want.
As was said at the opening, none of the above is excuse to be unkind or unmerciful with those who have succumbed to the passion of homosexuality or advocate some ideology of homosexualism or queerism. At the same time, we must remain unwavering and unyielding in our commitment to moral truth. To pretend that homosexualism is okay is actually to abandon mercy. Passions darken the mind, and thus philosophies and ideologies which found themselves on a passion, or confuse passion with virtue, are philosophies of darkness, and they condemn their adherents to darkness. Thus kindness and honesty must go hand in hand, tempering each other.