"You're not homophobic because you're heterosexual. There's a natural aversion in people who are heterosexual to the -- quote -- homosexual lifestyle. There's a natural aversion. That does not mean that you are a hater of homo, or whatever that word is.That doesn't mean that. And I'm tired of being characterized by politically correct people because we stand for the Bible." --Pat Robertson (the 700 Club TV show, 1/7/97)
IntroductionI am not gay. However I feel that it is important to support the rights of homosexuals. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is part of the nature of certain individuals. I know some people who happen to be gay, and except from their their having a different sexual orientation from the majority, they are not special in any way. This essay will explain some theories concerning why people become homosexuals, and what kind of rights homosexuals should have.
Is homosexuality natural?For me homosexual acts seem unnatural, but that is only what I feel inside, and is neither an objective statement about reality, nor a normative statement that says anything about the rights of homosexuals. That I feel it is unnatural does not make it so. The one who says homosexuality is unnatural must define natural. Is it unusual? In that case, how does that influence their rights? Should not minorities have the same rights as others? Besides, variety is usual in nature and thus the existence of (sexual) minorities is natural. Is it against human nature? I can't see why. It is part of their nature, and is not decided by factors that they have any chance to influence. (The question can even be raised whether there is such a thing as "human nature".)
Homosexuality is mainly due to genetic heredity, but partly to environmental factors, and pure chance. A homosexual has not chosen to become homo, he has simply become one because of external factors. It has originated by nature, and variety is natural, so I cannot see any reason why homosexuality should be considered unnatural despite my personal aversion to homosexual acts.
ToleranceOne of my guiding principles is tolerance. I may not respect the thoughts, opinions and belief of ethnical, political or sexual minorities, but I respect their right to be different without having to be persecuted for it. There is no reason why I should want to discriminate homosexuals when I wouldn't discriminate any other minorities.
Furthermore consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights. I see no reason why society would give any punishment to consenting people who give their love to each other.
Discrimination at workThere is absolutely no reason to discriminate homosexuals in any way. A homosexual pilot is not a worse pilot than anybody else, and neither is a homosexual pediatrician. Why should we be more scared to leave our sons to a homosexual male pedriatrician than to a female hetero? Why should we be more scared to leave our daughters to a female homo than to a male hetero one? There simply is no reason to discriminate homosexuals at work.
AdoptionThis is perhaps the only issue where I am not sure what I think. I would support the right of homosexual people to be mothers and fathers, but I also feel strongly that it is important to protect the children. It may not be any more harmful for a child to be brought up by two homosexuals than by a divorced parent, but as long as there are no investigations done I will remain cautious.
Recently I have heard that there are over 100 reports saying that there is no risk. As I said, I am only cautious because of the children. I am not fanatically banning it. If these reports are true, I do not see any rational reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children (though I emotionally don't really like it).
Note in August 2003: For several years now, I fully supprt the right of homosexuals to adopt children. I can't see any rational reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that. There have been many studies made, and the literature does not support the theory that children who are brought up by homosexual parents are worse off than other children. If the studies said that it is not good for children to grow up in such an environment I would not support the right of homosexuals to have children, but as the evidence says that there is no risk (see e.g. the booklet by "Folkhälsoinstitutet", national institute of public health - sweden, below) I don't see why homosexuals should be discriminated against in this issue. More and more studies are made on the subject, and all confirm that the children have no problem growing up in a homosexual family (e.g. Golombok S et. al. 2003)
If the evidence was inconclusive I would still support the right of homosexuals to adopt children, because I don't think any group of people should be discriminated against unless there is special reasons for it, and the only reason to be against homosexual adoption if there is no evidence that it is harmful is a prejudice that homosexuals are strange people who in some way should not be allowed to raise a child. As far as I'm concerned, every child should have the right to have gay parents!
Can homosexuality be cured?
No! Many attempts have been made throughout history to "cure" homosexuals. Some quite barbarian, such as cutting the breasts off lesbians. All have failed. It is possible that we can prevent homosexuality from arising, but should we do it? I don't se why we should. What harm do homosexuals do to other people just by being different?
It is not homosexuality that needs to be "cured" -- it's homophobia that needs to be cured!
Some references about homosexuality
Back to Fredrik Bendz' homepage
Created: March 28, 1997
Last update: Saturday, August 23, 2003