The European Union’s newest raison d’Etat: Homosexualism

As left-leaning media gleefully report, at yesterday’s EU Summit there has been some kind of a showdown between a majority of (mostly Western European) leaders and Hungary’s Viktor Orban on the subject of Hungary’s new Law on the Protection of Minors. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte allegedly went so far as to call for Hungary to leave the EU on its own initiative (there is no mechanism to exclude a Member State), an impoliteness unheard of in the Union’s history. Luxembourg’s sodo-“married” Prime Minister Xavier Bettel told a larmoyant story how as a boy he had felt chided by his own mother because of his sexual orientation. Portugal’s Antonio Costa said that Hungary had been welcomed into the EU back in 2004 only on condition of signing up and respecting “European values”. Angela Merkel made a more anodyne statement, saying that “Children also have rights” (a statement Orban surely agreed with, as his claim is that children have a right to protection against sexual abuse), and that “homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing” (which Orban probably also agreed with, as his new law does not contain any language to that effect).

This is not the first row between the Western-European mob and Hungary, but it is nevertheless worrying that a law on the protection of minors could become so controversial in the EU, and that a matter so clearly falling far outside the Union’s competences could result in such a rift in the European Council. It would appear that the European Union has a completely new raison d’Etat that a majority of its political leaders, without actually having received a political mandate for this, suddenly have agreed must be considered one of its core values: the ideology of “Homosexualism”.

This ideology was first described already years ago in the (confidential, but in the meantime world famous) paper “Restoring the Natural Order – an Agenda for Europe”, which we (very unapologetically) use as an inspiration for this blog. Given its rapid advances (if not in the actual text of the EU Treaties or anywhere else in constitutional law, then at least in the brains and guts of Europe’s opinion-forming political and media elite) it is time to recall this analysis and expand on it.

“Homosexualism” clearly is a political ideology: a set of deliberately simplistic ideas to explain the world, unrelated (or even in direct contradiction) to tangible reality, totally un-scientific, yet politically effective. It uses the phenomenon of homosexuality, i.e. the fact that some people feel sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, as a lever to destroy society and rebuild it differently.

The basic dogma of Homosexualism is the ultra-simplistic reinterpretation of a far more complex reality: homosexuality is to be considered a distinctive feature of a person’s identity, just the same way as the color of that person’s skin, eyes, or hairs.

The consequences of this simplistic reduction can be summarized as follows:

• First, any objection to homosexuality can be framed as “racism”, and anyone raising such objections can be silenced on that ground alone. This is very useful when you want to avoid a rational debate at all cost. (It suffices to look at the experience Mr. Orban is making these days, when discussing with EU leaders who clearly have no clue at all regarding the actual content of the law they are attacking…)
• Second, the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual practices is cancelled out: from the fact that someone “is homosexual” (born that way), it is deduced that he must have the right to engage in homosexual acts, no matter what those acts consist of. The only limitation that is still accepted is that these acts should be with “consenting adults”.
• Third, this implies that – except “consensuality” – there can be no objective criterion upon which to judge the appropriateness and/or morality of a sexual act. The suggestion that the purpose of the sexual act could have to do with procreation and the renewal of society must be considered a heresy. We do not seem to know anymore what sexuality is there for – hence, everyone must try and find out for himself. This is the spirit in which sexual orientation must take place.

Let us analyze these three points one by one.

Homosexuality and “Identity”:

While the assimilation of homosexuality to race is certainly politically useful for the LGBT-agenda, the claim that homosexuality pertains to a person’s identity in exactly the same way as skin color is spurious and has no scientific foundation.

A person’s identity is a much more complex matter. It contains elements that such as skin color, eye color, sex, and other distinctive and inalterable features that one is born with. Many of them are “neutral”, others (such as certain corporal deficiencies, or a genetic predisposition towards certain illnesses) can be considered a clear disadvantage for those affected and yet still do not justify a negative moral judgment against them. But there are also elements that are acquired such as religion and nationality. We say that a child is born Christian or Muslim, French or German, but in fact this just means that he is absorbed into a Christian or Muslim, French or German, culture. A person’s attachment to this part of its identity can be (and often is) very strong, but it can be altered: a Muslim can decide to become Christian, a Frenchman can give up speaking French and learn German instead. Yet we consider that also these alterable features of “identity” are deserving of protection (at least if we are not speaking of, for example, a religion that cannot be tolerated in a free society because of the practical implications of its teachings).

Which place does “sexual orientation” have in this? Very clearly, its claim of being “innate” and “inalterable” is far less convincing than if we were speaking of sex. Leaving aside the rare exception of “intersex” persons whose sex cannot be unambiguously identified, a person is born either male or female. With regard to a person’s sexual orientation, the  situation is less clear-cut. It might to some extent be traced back to a genetic pre-disposition, but this is so fare a mere hypothesis for which hard scientific evidence is missing: no one has yet discovered the “homosexual gene”, however hard geneticists have been looking for it. There are strong reasons to believe that homosexual attractions can to some extent also be triggered by traumatic childhood experiences, or otherwise acquired. Very probably, there is a combination of these and other reasons, which may differ from one case to the next. The truth is: we do not (yet) know. The matter is open to scientific research, and that research should not be ideologized (or otherwise it would lose its scientific character).

Which implications does this have? Obviously, if homosexuality is not “innate” but – at least to some extent – acquired, one might be forgiven to think that for those who do not want it there must be a way to get rid of it  (just as, for the other elements of identity mentioned above, it is without doubt possible to change religion or nationality). And indeed, there are therapists who claim that they have developed therapies against unwanted same-sex attraction, and there are persons who claim that, thanks to such treatments, they have been able to get rid of their unwanted same-sex proclivities and become “straight”.

We are not intending to pass a judgment on any of those claims. However, what must be observed is that the question whether any given sexual orientation is alterable or not is open to scientific research, and that this research should be free from ideological predeterminations. And we may add that even if there were no efficient treatments to reverse unwanted same-sex attraction today, it is still possible that such treatments might be discovered tomorrow. On what grounds should one prohibit scientific research and the search for new therapies, if there are (as is the case) many people waiting for such therapies to be developed.

The Homosexualist ideology is full of glaring paradoxes and inconsistencies in this regard:

• While it claims to respect and promote “identity” and “freedom”, it either denies the very existence of persons who want to get (or indeed have got) rid of their unwanted homosexual orientation or, to the extent that it does not deny the existence of these persons, it denies their right to choose whether they want to be homosexual or not. It therefore discriminates between different groups of homosexuals, and does so for ideological reasons.
• The process of “coming out”, i.e. the transition from hetero- to homosexual orientation is warmly welcomed and cheered – but what if someone wants to make the reverse transition? In that case there is no encouragement and cheering, no praise for the person’s courage, no jubilation that he/she has “finally discovered his/her true self”. Instead, the person is told that such a transition is not possible: “You are born homosexual and must remain so”.
• Very strangely, while the Homosexualist ideology claims that homosexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed, it makes the opposite claim with regard to a person’s biological sex: it is a matter of mere choice and can be changed at will. Yet the latter is clearly much more determinate than the first, being a matter of hard physical reality rather than a matter of (perhaps transient) emotional or sensual preferences.
• In line with this ideological stance, the Homosexualist ideology pushes (to some extent successfully) for any kind of therapeutic offer to people with unwanted same-sex attractions to be suppressed and outlawed (including, if attainable, for adult persons!), while on the other hand it wants “gender assignment therapies”, which include irreversible plastic surgery and hormone treatments, to be made available to minors, ideally without a requirement that their parents give their consent or even be informed.

Cancelling out the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual practices:

While with regard to “straight” (i.e., heterosexually oriented) folks it is still generally accepted that their sexual behavior, albeit heterosexual, can be “normal” and “morally acceptable” in some, but “deviant” in other cases, that same distinction does not apply anymore to homosexual practices: LGBT people must be given the free and totally unlimited right to act out their sexuality, because that sexuality is “who they are”, and any restriction thereof is a restriction of the free expression of their personality.  A law prohibiting sodomy must be considered “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”, because it exclusively affects the interests of homosexually oriented people.

What happens if that logic were to be applied in other contexts?

• Very obviously, people with pedophile leanings could avail themselves of the same argument: they must be allowed to act out their sexuality have sex with children, because that is “who we are”. A law prohibiting child porn and/or sex with minors must be deemed a discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, because it negatively affects the interests of persons with pedophilia, not of anyone else.
• A law prohibiting theft is also to be deemed discriminatory, because it affects people with kleptomania disproportionally more than other people. At least, kleptomaniacs should be exempted from such laws, because appropriating other people’s property is an important expression of their identity.
• Pyromaniacs could make the same claims with regard to laws prohibiting arson.
• Irascible people could make a similar point with regard to laws against domestic violence.
• And so forth…

Of course, the adepts and promoters of the Homosexualist ideology will shriek with anger whenever any link or comparison is made between homosexuality and pedophilia. But what we are saying here is not that all (or even a disproportionately large number of) homosexuals are pedophile, or the inverse. This is just a structural analysis of where the homosexualist argument leads when applied to other contexts. To the very least, the conclusion that must be drawn (including for homosexuals) is this: an inclination, sexual or other, does not automatically confer an entitlement to behave in any particular way. The kleptomaniac can be asked to abstain from stealing, the pyromaniac from arson, and the pedophile from child abuse. Why not the homosexual from sodomy?

“Because”, the Homosexualist ideologues will say, “sodomy is not bad. Theft, arson, and child abuse are bad, but not sodomy”.

We will analyze that argument further down. But first let us nevertheless recall that it has taken the Homosexualist movement quite a long time to distance itself from the pro-pedophile agenda it promoted not so very long ago. And that distancing seems to be, to a large extent, for tactical reasons rather than out of a sincere conviction. Even today, while it agrees that homosexual acts should be legal only “between consenting adults”, it has consistently been pushing for the lowering of the age of consent to 14  or even below. The arguments that are used are the same that one can here from pedophiles: the young lads “enjoy sex” and “are old enough to make their own decisions”.

The lack of real criteria to judge the morality of sexual behavior:

Let us then revert to the question we asked above: if pedophiles can be asked to abstain from sex with children, why cannot homosexuals be asked to abstain from sex with adults persons of the same sex? Because, they say, sex with children is bad, while sex with adults (irrespective of what sex is practiced and in which context) is ok.

It appears that for the Homosexualist movement the one and only criterion to distinguish morally acceptable from morally inacceptable sexual practice is “consent”. We give them credit that they would not find it acceptable if someone is forced to have sex against their will, but if there is “consent” all is fine. There are no other criteria. Of course, any person is left free to define criteria for themselves, but the state shouldn’t. It is all a matter of private life and free choice.

Thus what makes sex with children different is only that children, by reason of their low age are not able to form valid consent. This is what sets sex with children apart from (homo- or heterosexual) sex among adults.

The problem here is that this line of reasoning uses a very simplistic concept of “consent”, based on a mere legal assumption that may seem somewhat arbitrary: the assumption that below a certain age (that the law wants to be the same for everyone) a minor is to be considered too immature to form a will and to make a decision that concerns himself. Yet this is what it is: a mere assumption, applied in a standardized way to everyone, and applied in the same way to the factual act of having sex as to the legal act of concluding a real estate purchase contract. Whoever argues in this way has no essential objection against sex with children, he simply acknowledges that he will respect the law.

Consider, however, what the pedophile will say to justify his actions before himself and society. In the first instance, as we have seen, he will use the structurally identical argument that it used to justify sodomy: “I am pedophile. I am born that way. I must therefore be allowed to have sexual intercourse with children. It isn’t my choice, so why am I punished for it?” In the second instance, having been told that sex is morally acceptable only when consensual, he will say: “But I am not raping anyone. I wouldn’t do that. The children I have sex with want to have sex with me. Some Children enjoy sex. Maybe not all children do, but the ones I have sex with. It is consensual.” Thus, must be objected that even if and when a child actually wants to have sex with him, the sexual intercourse can still not be deemed to be consensual because the child, being of minor age, is not able to form a legally valid will. Against this, the pedophile will reply in the third instance: “yes, but this is now merely a legal distinction, based on a mere assumption. In reality, this individual child is perfectly able of forming a will, and she happens to be willing to have sex with me. I am not raping anyone. Where is then the big moral difference between today and next month, when she will have reached the age of consent?”

He is not wrong. As everyone knows, children are not unable to form a will – they can in fact be very determined and strong-headed. Whether that will reflects a mature decision is yet another question, but maturity does not come from one day to the next. A legal cut-off date can be used to distinguish a legal from an illegal act, but it is not an apt criterion to pass a judgment on morality. Thus the pedophile, hypocritical though his reasoning may be, certainly has a point.

Which leads us to the decisive point: if “consent”, if determined by an arbitrarily set cut-off date, cannot reasonably be used as the one and only criterion for passing a moral judgment on sexual behavior, which other criteria must be applied? Do they have to do with the finality of the sexual act? Do they have to do with the health risks that are associated with certain sexual practices.

The problem with the Homosexualist ideology is that, in order to provide justification to the practice of sodomy, it erases all moral criteria on which sexual behavior can be judged, except one: consent. And that single criterion is a rather weak one. Although the LGBT-Movement furiously denies it, there is a close material link between itself and the pedophile sub-culture, which it not so long ago very officially accepted as friends and partners. The only real difference is that slightly different notions of “consent” are being entertained. By necessity, LGBT is a door opener for pedophilia, even if it does not want to be seen that way.

A sound and realistic moral judgment on sexual behavior can only be made when the final purpose of sexuality is kept in mind: procreation, the renewal and rejuvenation of society, the forming of stable families that are a safe and good environment for children to grow up. The Homosexualist ideology denies all this in the name of an absurd and counter-factual claim of “equality”.

It follows that the Homosexualist ideology cannot accept that the finality of the sexual act receive any mention in the sexual education curricula that are imparted to children at school. It seeks to impose its own ideological viewpoint on society, a viewpoint in which the sole purpose of sexuality is “pleasure” and enjoyment”, whereas the positive goal of educating young boys and girls to become good fathers and mothers must play no role at all. This explains to a large extent the shrill, almost hysterical reactions of the latter-day guardians of EU values against the Hungarian Law on the protection of minors. The problem apparently is not that, as has been falsely claimed, that the children will not be allowed to receive any information on “homosexuality and other non-majoritarian sexual orientations”, it is that the children will receive positive information on the finality of founding good and stable families. A finality that will inevitable lead them to see the deficiencies of certain other sexual behaviours.

As we have written before, it is good that Hungary has adopted this law amidst an aggressive and increasingly nasty culture war against marriage and the family, in which, regrettably, certain EU Member States play the role of a spear-head and have managed to enlist even the EU institutions. We wish Hungary good luck, determination, and the strong courage that will be required to stand by its position. And we hope that other governments – those who care for the real good of society rather than for fashionable ideologies – will come to help. The true values of Europe are the ones defended by Hungary, not the ones promoted by its detractors.