By TC. Lo (盧天賜) ; March 13, 2017
Introduction
The word “normality” is used to describe a condition which conforms to a self-evident norm. The opposite of “normality” is “abnormality” which is used to indicate irregularity or deviation from a common standard. It is like an archer shooting an arrow at a target, there are infinite ways to shoot amiss but only one way to score. If hitting the bull’s eye is defined as normal—something ought to be, then missing the bull’s eye of the target is abnormal. Since there are infinite ways to miss the mark, so abnormality has a gradation of incorrectness: From slightly missing the bull’s eye to totally missing the target altogether. This gradation can be thought of as an indicator of moral rectitude: From being amoral on one end to gross perversion on the other.
Perhaps the most influential revolution after the American Revolution (1765-1783) and the Industrial Revolution (1760-1830) had been the Sexual Revolution beginning from the sixties to now and forward. Homosexuality and its many variations had become the central point of the revolution. Here we use the word “homosexual” as an inclusive word for Gay, Lesbian, By-sexual, and Transsexual (known as LGBT) for convenience in communication.
This article attempts to answer three questions:
1. Is homosexuality abnormal?
2. If homosexuality is abnormal, is it morally abnormal?
3. If homosexuality is morally abnormal, on what bases and to what extent it is immoral?
The answer to the first question is crucial. If the answer is “No”, there will be no need to answer the subsequent two questions. Be noted that the first question says nothing about moral value in terms of being good or bad. It is merely an assessment of a state or condition.
The second question arises since not all abnormalities are spoken of in moral terms. For example, if the height of an adult is less than two feet or more than ten feet, I think we all would agree that this is abnormal; or if a person has six fingers on one hand, we would also label it being abnormal. But these kinds of deviations from the norm are
amoral (i.e., nothing to do with morality or ethics). We should show compassion and respect to these people with deformities but we could not deny that their conditions are not abnormal.
The third question is another way to say that sin has level of severity. Hatred and murder are both sins but clearly, one is more serious than the other. So, the question is: “At what point on the moral scale does homosexuality lies?”
Let me first go so far as to claim that homosexuality is abnormal. And let me provide several arguments to sustain this assertion.
Physiological argument
The anatomies of male and female are complementary. This is indisputably a strong evidence of design. From the physical structure of men and women or even male and female animals, we see a beautiful design of harmony and seamless compatibility. This strongly reflects the wisdom of the Designer. It is self-evident that heterosexuality is natural and hence normal. It thus follows that any other forms of sexuality is abnormal.
Purpose argument
Equally disputable is that the purpose of heterosexual marriage is for the possibility of producing posterity so that the human species can multiply and continue endlessly. Homosexual marriage can never produce children. If abnormality is defined as violation of purpose, homosexual copulation is an abnormal mode of sexual behaviors.
Demographic argument
Furthermore, those who were born with homosexual orientation amounts to only a very small fraction of the entire human population though the exact number is debatable. Some scientists would even argue that homosexual genes are nonexistent. Just by sheer statistic, it is safe to say that congenital sexual confusion is abnormal in much the same sense as to say that six-fingered persons are aberration due to their rarity.
Cultural argument
Since the beginning of the human history, heterosexual marriage has never been a subject of controversy. Regardless of the differences among peoples, languages, cultures and levels of civilization, wedding ceremonies between men and women had always been a celebrating events to be conducted joyfully and openly.
On the contrary, homosexual marriage and its different variations were culturally and traditionally considered disgraceful and had been topics of gossip in social gatherings and in tabloids. Homosexual behaviors were always covered up and kept inside the closet. Not until the recent gay liberation movement which has encouraged homosexual to come out of the closet that the shame and guilt feeling began to smoldered.
Politicians support the gay movement to get votes. Attempts had been made to legalize the homosexual behavior by redefining marriage. As of June 26, 2015, homosexuals can count the Supreme Court as their ally: In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that LGBT individuals have a constitutionally protected right to wed.
Legalization and popularity of the gay movement gradually stifled the social conscience. Embarrassment has now been clothed with rainbow-colored garments. What used to be aberrant had now become a new norm. Just think, if people rely on legal means to justify their behavior, it further proves that their behaviors are unnatural and hence abnormal.
The philosophical or spiritual argument
Human beings are the only creatures capable of speech and thinking in abstract terms. This is because human species are endowed by God with His Spirit (人為萬物之靈). Therefore, behind all great ideas or philosophies, especially rituals conceived by or revealed to men must have deeper meanings that transcend their first-thought interpretation. Marriage is a ritual or ceremony. What then is its spiritual significance? I, as a Christian, can think of at least two biblical significance:
(1) Marriage between a man and a woman points to the intimate relationship between Christ and His Church. The Bible repeatedly mentions that Church being the Bride of Christ as a metaphor to teach the intimate love and care and His ever presence in our lives. This holy matrimony ultimately points to the oneness of the Savior and his redeemed in a perfect union in eternity. This is a spiritual mystery expressible by and understood through the jointing of husband and wife in the humanly experiences. Homosexual marriage offers no such profound meaning.
(2) Marriage points to a profound Christian doctrine of Trinity. Ravi Zacharias had made the following observation: The Bible describes marriage as the sacred coming together of a man and a woman in a consummate and exclusive relationship: “and they will become one flesh (Genesis 2:24)”. When the consummate sexual act is completed and the woman is impregnated, at the very moment of conception (whether she realizes it or not), there are actually three persons within one being—the woman, the seed of her husband, and, between them, the third person, the child. The woman is no longer responsible only for herself, for she is carrying her husband’s distinctive DNA that, joined with her DNA, will engender the distinctive third person with his or her own DNA. In a strange and mystical but factual way, there is three in one. Zacharias then asks a very simple question: If in our finitude, we can understand this concept of three-in-one in procreation, is it impossible for the Creator, who is infinite, to be “Three in One” sense and “One” in another sense? (Ref. 1)
Can one draw any spiritual meanings out of the various aberrant same-sex expressions? I believe it is safe to conclude that homosexual behaviors are abnormal because no element of transcendent significance could possibly be assigned to the homosexual categories.
There are two kinds of abnormalities: one is in the moral category and the other is in the amoral category. Obviously, people of abnormal heights or having six fingers in one palm is nothing to do with morality. The question is: If homosexuality is abnormal, is it morally abnormal? To answer this question from biblical perspective, let me quote two Bible passages—one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.
Leviticus 18:21-23, says:
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
In this Old Testament text, we see first that, by sheer common sense, sacrificing an innocent child in an altar is heinous crime by any standard, and having sex with animals is indisputably a gross perversion. Sandwiched between these two obvious perversions lies the homosexual acts expressed by verse 22. Does it tell us something? One can clearly see that not only homosexuality is abnormal, but also the level of severity in the morality scale is obviously on the side of seriousness when it is juxtaposed by two very serious sinful acts.
Romans 1:24-28 reads:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
This New Testament text demonstrates how God speaks against homosexuality. One just need to note carefully the adjectives—sinful, degrading, shameful, unnatural, depraved—that describes homosexual behaviors. One must be deaf and blind to have missed God’s warning and admonitions over against this kind of sexual perversion.
References:
(1) “Has Christianity Failed You?” by Ravi Zacharias; page 40.
