Homosexualism

The following questions are an attempt to draw attention to a number issues that seem to be overlooked by homosexualists. Most seem to be 'elephants in the room'.

• On the style of debate:
  • Has not homosexualism become a hegemony in the mainstream media? Such that it has cut out all contrary voices?

  • Dominance in the arts and media: has it been gained by good argument, or by shouting down any who oppose them? Has not shouting "Homophobic!", whenever anyone questions the homosexualist agenda, effectively silenced or sidelined all contrary views? [Note 1].

  • Have we too readily labelled people 'gay', 'lesbian', when all they have is a closeness to someone of the same sex? Or they are going through the turbulence of adolescence? Should we not be allowed to have closeness to people of either sex without it being assumed to be sexual? [Note]

• Is the debate really over? Has the issue really been settled?
  • Has the genetic basis for a homosexual disposition been proven? Is it not true that there is no sound overwhelming evidence for this? Is it not true that the evidence is still '50-50'? (For example, Niklas et al. find social factors more important than genetic.)

  • Have we really taken all possible causes of same-sex attraction into account?

  • Is it not over-simplified to say there are only two options, of moral choice versus natural unalterable inclination? Is there not also a third option, of responding to prevailing societal presupposition and cultural mindset?

  • As far as I am aware, the necessary research has not been done.

  • As a result, is there a huge 'spiral of silence' that doubts the validity of homosexuality, but is scared to admit so?

• On narrow focus and imbalance:
  • Has too much emphasis been placed on sexuality, at the expense of other aspects of life and identity? [Note 2]

  • Do all intimate relationships have to be seen as sexual? Can members of same sex not have a close affectionate relationship without it being labelled 'homosexual'?

  • Is homosexuality (lesbian-gay) grossly over-represented in the arts, comedy and media?

  • If so, why?

• Is the homosexualist agenda implicitly a form of neo-colonialism?
  • Is not the homosexualist agenda (as distinct from homosexuality itself) largely a Western affluent phenomenon that seeks to dominate non-Western cultures? [Note 3]

  • Is that dominance without sensitivity?

  • Does the Western view assume a superiority, which sees itself as progressive and the other cultures as backward? Is there not a danger of colonialism, presuming that Western 'progressive' ideas have an innate 'right' to domination over the non-Western ideas?

  • Is it not surprising that only recently it was the progressives who proposed respect for non-Western cultures, and now these same 'progressives' are ignoring especially the African viewpoint, or are silent about those who do so? (Example: Jackie Kay, publicly poured scorn on Africans.)

  • Is it hypocritical: Jane Lanscombe condemned the African bishops for not "seeing" LGB in their countries - but does the LGB hegemony in the affluent North "see" people around them who question the validity of homosexualism without condemning them as 'homophobic'?

Is it not time for proper exploration, analysis and debate to address these questions?

Notes

Note on Conflation. Homosexualists conflate sexual attraction with personal attraction, sexual love with other kinds of love, but the sexual is very different from the personal, even though they may be linked. Richard Harries, for instance, on 13 October 2017 (BBC Radio 4, Today, Thought for the Day) was stressing what he called the 'goodness' of sexual attraction. To take just one example from his talk: As evidence, he cited a gay friend whom he asked "Don't you find it difficult when you are attracted to men?" to which the friend responded "No; I find it difficult when I am not attracted to them." The gay friend was meaning personal attraction, but Harries was taking it to mean sexual attraction. Why did Harries do this? Was it deliberate conflation, sloppiness, or stupidity? What Harries did I have found in others, and the same question applies, but this time it is societal: British (and other Western?) society has not adequately recognised or discussed the difference between them - is this because of deliberate conflation, sloppiness or societal stupidity?

Note 2. An example of narrow views. On 25 July 2015 President Obama of the USA was visiting Kenya. To the President of Kenya, He praised Kenya for various things, then criticised it for two things: corruption and its attitude to gay 'rights'. Why did Obama choose that issue, above all others, to mention? Why not climate change, for example? President Obama was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Today Programme on 25 July 2015. Again, gay marriage was discussed, but not climate change.

Note 3. Three examples of Western homosexualist arrogance.

• Jackie Kay, lesbian poet, publicly sneered and laughed at Africans for their 'backward' views on homosexuality in February 2015; see 'An Evening With Jackie Kay'.
• On 25 July 2015 the President of the most powerful country was visiting the Kenyan President (see Note 2) and criticised Kenya for its attitude to gay 'rights', when he could have mentioned many other issues. The President of Kenya pointed out that this should not be forced on people who do not want it.
• The American Episcopal church has been trying to force gay priests and bishops on the Anglican Communion without sensitivity to the Africans. Is this hypocritical or just ironic, given that only a few short decades ago it was urging the North to take African culture seriously? It seems that its own interests trump those of Africa.

See also:

• On Homosexuality - draft: a discussion

• Am I Homophobic? - questions hosted on behalf of someone

• The Homosexuality Debate: Some Questions - question for all sides - of Christians against homosexuality, Christians in favour, and other 'homosexualists'.

To send comments, queries, suggestions please send an email to:
       
- an email address made up as follows:

• After the 'at' sign is the domain, which is "kgsvr . net" without the spaces

• Before the 'at' sign is "xn" - just those two letters, which is my abbreviation for "Christian".

(I apologise that I have to make it a little complicated; it is because I don't want automated spamming systems to find the email and send junk that will swamp your genuine messages. Thank you for your understanding - as well as for your comments.

About This Page

Copyright (c) Andrew Basden at all the dates below. But you may use this material subject to certain conditions.

Written on the Amiga with Protext in the style of classic HTML.

Created: 25 April 2014. Last updated: 5 July 2015 Replaced the original list with a more structured list of questions that separates out the issues. 7 July 2015 .end corrected. 25 July 2015 Obama narrowness and western arrogance. 26 July 2015 new form. 10 January 2016 'progressive' and African views, shortened ending. 19 February 2017 request dashes. 13 October 2017 conflation. 28 November 2017 Lanscombe hypocritality. 12 April 2019 rw intro; Jim Wells, trying to get cgi-bin working. 1 July 2019 over-rep in media; refce to 'ic'. 16 July 2021 See also + new .end.