“Gay vs. God”: creating false “myths in order to “debunk” them…

ILGA-Europe, the fake “non-governmental” group financed by the EU with taxpayers’ money, is launching a new propaganda effort to “reach out to religious believers”. In a campaign entitled “Gay vs God”, they want to “want to break down the stereotypes around religion, belief, sexual orientation and gender identity.” These alleged stereotypes include the “myth” that “people can be LGBTI or religious, but not both at the same time”, or that “campaigning for LGBT rights and respecting religious freedom is irreconcilable”. Sub-text: it is possible even for good Christians (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists….) to support the homo-agenda, to accept the re-definition of marriage, or to themselves engage in sodomy. Whatever their religious leaders say, they may do so in good conscience.

NS-Propaganda making adroit use of a photo showing Hitler with the papal nuncio Mgr. Torregrossa

Sounds good. But those of us who are familiar with history will remember that back in the 1930s Adolf Hitler undertook similar outreach activities, and some doubtlessly well-intentioned addressees of these activities were naive enough  to get involved in them. The “useful idiots” that ILGA has managed to enroll in its ENORB network are, however, very marginal figures within their own faith communities – rather a lunatic fringe than credible representatives of the “faiths” they claim to speak for.

In any case, the subject of the debate that ILGA wants to initiate and steer is purposefully mis-framed right from the outset. Religious believers are human beings like everyone else, and as such they are as likely as everyone else to be affected by sexual mis-orientations  – be it (as homo-ideologues claim) because they are “born that way”, or because such mis-orientations have been triggered by some external influences. Very clearly, no reasonable person would ever deliberately choose such a mis-orientation, if he or she ever had the choice.

What may set off religious believers against non-believers is perhaps their greater ability to resist and overcome the temptation to engage in sexual misconduct. But this relates in fact not only to sexual misconduct, but to any kind of misconduct. Not surprisingly, for the behaviour of a person it simply does make a difference whether that person believes, or does not believe, in transcendence, eternal justice, or a last judgement. Failing such beliefs, a person may still in principle be able to distinguish right from wrong, but it may lack motivation to do what is right (especially when no one is watching, or when – as in  our day – public opinion appears to accept, or even reward, all kinds of indecent behaviours).

But apart from this purely motivational aspect, it seems a self-evidence that any reasonable person, religious believers or non-believers alike, will find that the sexual misdemeanors that ILGA-Europe is propagating are wrong and morally reprehensible. This is an objective moral truth, accessible to anyone who is not placing some misguided sexual urge above what his reason must tell him. In other words, the negative moral judgement falling upon sodomy has nothing to do with “religious belief”. If there is any difference between the major religions, it is that some are more charitable than others in dealing with those who are engaging in an objectively immoral and harmful behaviour.

“God is with us”, the Nazis claimed. But in fact they persecuted Christianity.

One must of course always distinguish – as we do on this blog – between homosexuality (i.e., the “sexual orientation” that often is not desired, nor chosen, by those possessed by it), and the sexual act between persons of the same sex. Obviously, a not-self-chosen and unwanted inclination is not subject to a moral judgement, while a freely willed act is. The English word for the act is “sodomy”, and those engaging in it are called “sodomites” words which we consistently use not out of spite against those concerned, but simply because there is a need to distinguish the “orientation” from the act. As an alternative, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has developed a terminology that speaks of “men having sex with men” (MSM) or “women having sex with women” (WSW) – which is ok because it refers to behaviour rather than inclination.  But the disadvantage is that it is quite lengthy, that ordinary people will not understand the acronyms without an explanation, and because MSM and WSW can only be used for persons, not for their behaviour. Yet it is precisely the behaviour that can and must be condemned, whereas – at least for religious believers – it is not for us to make a final judgement on persons.

What really lies at the heart of the debate – but ILGA will never acknowledge this – is not any religious belief, but two competing athropologies. The anthropology underpinning ILGA’s homo-agenda views sexual activity (or, to use the term one finds in the Programme of Action adopted at the UN Conference on Population and Development held 1994 in Cairo: a “satisfying sex-life”) as the supreme good to which everything else must be subordinated. In this view, sex is thus a commodity that must be available to everyone, at all times and in all possible forms. This can be achieved only if it is un-linked from its procreative purpose and the responsibility that comes with it. Once this dissociation is accepted, sodomy is just one of many possible and acceptable forms of leisure sex.

The anthropology that reasonable people (believers and non-believers alike) adhere to is different from this. It accepts that the natural purpose of sexuality is procreation, and that the sexual urge is sub-servient to that purpose. a sexual urge that is directed on any other target than a person of the opposite sex is therefore mis-directed. Besides this, even a sexual-urge that is in itself healthy and normal must be controlled by a person’s free will that transforms the sexual act into a moral act for which a person can assume responsibility.

pig-with-human-face-dieUltimately, ILGA-Europe’s ideology does injustice even to those whose interests it pretends to represent. It views all people, but in particular homosexuals, as if they were animals that have no other choice than to mechanically do whatever their sexual urges push them to do. There is no free will, and hence no responsibility: you are “born that way”, hence you must behave “that way”. This is why the distinction between “homosexual” and “sodomite” is so difficult to accept for the homo-ideologues. They cannot accept it because it implies that people are actually responsible for their actions. Their preferred view on man is that man is merely an animal – an intelligent animal perhaps, but an animal nevertheless.  The genitalia prevail over the brain, and the sexual appetite over reason and responsibility.

Let us therefore hope that ILGA’s attempt to delude the addressees of its new campaign will not, or at the worst only to a very limited extent, be successful. Very clearly, the themes for discussion are being put in a wrong frame: in reality, it is common ground that everyone should enjoy equal rights. But sodomy is not, and cannot be, a “right” for anyone.