Homosexuality may be a political issue, which Joan Solms avers in The Voice, but it is most certainly not a moral one. Questions of morality involve conscious choices; one decides to become either moral or immoral depending upon his/her understanding of the current code of morality.
Codes of morality have been around for a long time, and they keep changing in content as ignorance and superstition give way to enlightenment and rationality. Once upon a time, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his wife and children if they “misbehaved,” i.e did not do as he ordered them to do. It was perfectly acceptable to hang/burn at the stake a woman who acted “strangely” (“thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” – Exodus 22:18). It was perfectly acceptable to own slaves and to punish them severely if they got too “uppity,” i.e. protested their treatment. It was perfectly acceptable to send children off to factories for eight hours a day instead of sending them off to schools. It was perfectly acceptable to send a person to prison if he could not pay his debts. And it was perfectly acceptable for a rich man to have a mistress, and break his marriage vows, so long as he paid his taxes and tithed to his house of worship of choice.
We don’t do those things anymore, do we, dear reader? Well, maybe that last one is still “on the books”! Those things aren’t acceptable anymore. Our code of morality has changed radically since those practices once reigned supreme.
One piece of the old moral code still remains, however. I’m sure Ms Solms is familiar with Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” I don’t know how many “queers” Ms Solms has killed so far, you’ll have to ask her, but this is the moral code to which she subscribes. Others have obeyed this “commandment,” and they often brag about it, in private, of course, because it is no longer acceptable amongst a growing segment of the population.
Homosexuality, as I have alluded to above, does not derive from a conscious choice. No LGBTQ person wakes up one morning and says to him/herself, “I think I’ll become a queer, because it’s cool to be one.” LGBTQ people were born that way and thus have no control over how they feel. It’s in their genetic code.
The human body carries a number of chromosomes, thread-like structures consisting of proteins and one molecule of DNA. Chromosomes transmit information which determines the appearance and function of every part of the body; this information derives from the genetic make-up of one’s parents. Each individual carries 23 pairs of chromosomes, one set from each parent. The 23rd pair, the Y and the X, called such because of their shape from one’s father and mother, respectively, govern the physical gender of the child. These chromosomes therefore secrete hormones which affect one’s mental outlook, i.e. masculinity or femininity.
Sometimes, however, the chromosomes are affected adversely, a chemical imbalance in the body, exposure to harmful radiation, or ingestion of a toxic substance, creating a mutation and upsetting the natural order of genetics. In the case of the sex chromosomes, the X may gain a few extra molecules of material, causing it to become a Y; similarly, a Y may lose a few molecules of material, causing it to become an X. Consequently, hormones which never should have been are secreted, and the child behaves accordingly despite his/her physical appearance.
This, dear reader, is why we have LGBTQ persons in our midst. The LGBTQ community might object to this analysis, but it is the only rational explanation of their condition. And besides, it serves to underpin their struggle to establish their identity in a hostile world. Misconceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, their lifestyle is not of their choosing. They must be what they are.
History has demonstrated that homosexuality was accepted in those nations where no patriarchal religion held sway and dominated the culture. In those nations, individuals were judged by how they behaved toward others, not by how they dressed or wore their hair; cosmopolitanism was the watchword (the so-called “Golden Rule,” if you will). Some day, it will be so in the U.S. of A., and enmity will be replaced by brother/sisterhood.
Just a thought.