Social attitudes to homosexual relationships derive ultimately from a repulsion instinctive in human beings which is Darwinian in origin and therefore attempts to impose equality of social esteem for homosexuality are doomed to failure and are tyranny.

According to David Cameron and the Liberal-Left generally, children should be taught to treat all people equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. Homosexuality is normal, he says. Civil partnerships should have as much value as marriage. 

The Pope however has described `homosexuality as ‘intrinsically disordered.’ We know in our bones that the Pope is right. The question is; ‘Can we and should we treat as equal those whom we know to be suffering from this disorder?

Dissecting Cameron’s Claims: Is Homosexuality Normal?

 Homosexuality is certainly normal in the sense that in any given society one  would expect homosexuals to exist.  But then you could say the same about all sexual relations which have also attracted the same kind of opprobrium historically: sex with the dead, bestiality, paedophilia, sex with the very old (‘toy boy’ is a sneer and a ‘toy boy’ with a really ancient woman is an object of (male ) derision. An old man with a very young nubile girl may be admired by some other males, but  the female is regarded with suspicion, especially if her partner is wealthy); sex with the mentally deficient or deeplyabnormal; sex with  the sick.

Why is only Homosexual Behaviour ‘Equal’? Why not, say, Incest?

 So why is homosexuality now not just acceptable but ‘normal’, and, if we are to believe David Cameron (and Nick Clegg and New Labour: the liberal consensus in short) homosexual ‘marriage’ is of equal  worth to heterosexual marriage? Why are the apparently overriding considerations of ‘equality’ reserved for this predeliction and not the others? Take incest, for example. Why if homosexual ‘marriage’ is condoned are incestuous marriages condemned, when both are between consenting adults? Why, if a prepubescent girl or boy enjoys the attentions of her / his father, mother or another adult  and willingly consents, is that too banned, expecially at a time when our youth are encouraged to assert their right to make its own decisions? Or if a woman wants a sexual relationship with  her pet German Shepherd which is only too willing to oblige, or a farmer with his flock of sheep, why should society and the law say ‘no’ to them but ‘yes’ to homosexuality? Aren’t these too only ‘lifestyle choices?’ deserving of equal respect?

Why certain Types of Sexual Relationships have generally had low Esteem

Let’s go back to our list of condemned sex acts or relationships, including homosexuality. Why have most societies most of the time regarded these with disapproval? It is religion and custom, just ‘bigotry’, liberals who think we are all programmed by our environments might say - and do say. A favourite philosopher of theirs, Peter Singer, thinks human beings can and should copulate with Chimpanzees. But that though begs the question as to why religion and custom have taken this attitude. So let’s look at them. What they have in common is that they either cannot produce children at all or are likely to produce children who are deficient in some way so that they in turn will be ess likely than normal to be able to produce and bring up healthy progeny.

Sexual Taboos Originate in Nature 

And that is the key to social attitudes to homosexual and these other ‘relationships.’ I have listed these in what in my opinion is a descending order of opprobrium. The most personally and socially rejected of sexual relationships are on the whole those  which are least likely successfully to produce any offspring, the most basic function of the human and indeed any animal, followed by those least likely to produce healthy, viable offspring,  In other words, the social attitudes towards these sexual relationships have a deep-rooted, underlying biological basis. This biological basis is of course not ‘rational’ in a thought-out way. But it is rational in a deeper way. It is the very stuff of what it is that makes us human. Nature has arranged instinctive repulsion in the normal human animal as a means of reproductive efficiency. So most people feel repelled by the thought of same sex relationships because if they weren’t, they would waste too much time and energy in engaging in it when they could be reproducing and successfully bringing up children.

General Factors which vary the force of Darwinian Motivation

The ordering of my list is my own. Other people may have different ideas and in any case such a listing has always been subject to cultural modifications. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt for example, married their sisters and the English upper classes married close cousins for the same kind of reasons - to keep power and wealth within the family. So while the repulsion most normal people feel most of the time for the acts themselves, being instinctual, will always exist and must inevitably colour their attitudes to those engaging in them, these attitudes can be modified up to a point according to the prevailing cultural climate.

The Power of Sex

 And of course, the sex drive is very powerful. There may be no normal heterosexual outlet for it in situations such as prison, military service, boarding school or societies such as ancient Greece or Islam where access to the other sex is severely restricted, but where access to young males was / is readily available. Then instinctive repulsion and the concomitant social taboos may be overridden for some people, depending on their personal tendencies.  These, though normally heterosexual, may then engage in homosexual acts, or indeed in other taboo activities. If this activity is widespread, the taboos themselves may become weak, as in ancient Greece, often cited by liberals as an example of a homosexual –tolerant society. Even there, though, tolerance was restricted in the main to sex with boys up to around puberty (those who had just reached sexual maturity were favoured by connoisseurs). Homosexual  relations between adult males was frowned upon. They could be used as an argument against an individual holding public office (we have the record of a speech made in the 300’s BC which argues just that) and could result in the death penalty. The passive partner in particular was viewed with less than admiration.

Individual Factors.   

As noted, the natural attitude of individuals towards homosexuality is in any case not uniform. It varies with individuals and with the circumstances they find themselves in. And individuals of one sex may not be particularly disturbed by witnessing homosexual behaviour in the other, because feelings of repulsion are not aroused to the extent that they would be if their own sex was involved.  

Some find Homosexuals good Company

Others still may find witnessing sexual activity between members of the other sex to be sexually titillating.  And while some women may not like homosexuality in males, others find ‘gays’ good company. They are often intelligent, artily talented (becoming hairdressers, fashion designers, literary types, actors etc) caring (many become nurses etc), charming and witty in an often  bitchy sort of way and good company. There is no sexual tension and  effeminate gays especially have a great deal in common with women although they might, as has sometimes been observed, exhibit some of the worst characteristics of females, only more so.

Those people (ie most) who find homosexual behaviour in close proximity difficult to deal with may be able to tolerate it or even find it entertaining if it is at a safe distance, for example on television & /or where there is an element of mockery or self mockery, as in the camp act of John Inman in ‘Are you Being Served’.    

The Fundamental Function of being Social  

What is the fundamental function of an individual being part of a society?  Man is a social animal. Since, as already noted, as an animal, a human’s primary function is to reproduce, the prime purpose of being in a society must be to help that process succeed. Successful reproduction involves not just having offspring but ensuring that they grow to sexual maturity and are capable of successfully reproducing in their turn. Society is valuable to an individual  insofar as it performs this facilitating role. 

Conclusions from Society’s Fundamental Purpose

It follows that society’s rules must be conducive to the individual’s successful reproduction.  Therefore society and religion in the modern era has encouraged the traditional Family as the best means to get children and to rear them safely to successful adulthood. In a  normal  heterosexual  family,  sexual activity between the man and woman not only produces children, but helps to bind the relationship to ensure there exists the love and emotional stability  necessary to raise them  and to provide for them mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually. A child has sex role models and learns rules of behaviour, attitudes and other aspects of culture which should go to make it a stable, happy and well adjusted adult capable of successfully reproducing in its turn. Any aspect of society which undermines such a process runs counter to its primary function and in general is therefore malign.  

Spitting in the Face of Nature: The Left’s Divorce of Sex from Procreation and the Destruction of a Civilisation 

Above, we saw that traditional sex taboos originate from the fundamental Darwinian – originated distaste for any sexual activity whose primary purpose is not procreation. The peculiar malignity of the Liberal-Left’s attitude to sex is that in the interests of ‘Equality’ it attempts to get society to accept that its primary purpose is indeed not procreation. It is viewed essentially as a recreational activity in which any preference is as good as the next

The traditional family with the male as the main provider is fiercely attacked  by the left which fatuously and ignorantly sees all relationships essentially in terms of economic power, because the male is thought to wield ‘unfair’ ie unequal power.  It is for this reason that the state is increasingly taking over the functions of the male as provider.

The attack on the traditional Family is only one of a range of profoundly anti-human and anti-life policies and attitudes which have been spawned as result of the mad equality agenda. These range from elevation of homosexuality and the single lifestyle in general to abortion on demand and  the enforced equal presence of women in the workplace. These measures, which at bottom reflect a profoundly  materialistic, Marxist  outlook  have greatly contributed to one of the most significant but not often mentioned features of present day Britain.

The Declining Birthrate of the Native British:  Proof of the Madness of the Equality Agenda

It follows from what has been said above that a society which is not reproducing itself and is therefore disappearing, even in times of great abundance, is a desperately failing society by definition regardless  of  material success. The failure of the native British to reproduce which took off with the Equal Pay Laws Decades ago which meant that house prices shot up, fed by two family incomes, so that young couples today postpone having children because their mortgage payments are so great is, more than anything else profound proof that the agenda of ‘Equality’ is not just false but madness. Amongst many other malign effects, it provides an excuse in the name of ‘equality’ for mass immigration, a kind of ritual disembowelment procedure in  the civilisational suicide of the ‘me’ generation.

The Tyranny of ‘Equality’ and the Marquis De Sade

                                                               The Marquis de Sade

The liberal left will not be able to enforce equality of treatment and esteem for homosexuality against the grain of human nature but it is trying, and its attempt is tyranny. People are being asked to accept aggressively and provocatively homosexual people on equal terms when their close proximity may make their flesh crawl and homosexuality may be contrary to their religion. It gives freedom of choice to homosexuals but denies it to the majority. And to return to an earlier question: why is homosexuality required to be treated equally and not the other ‘relationships?’ the answer is that there is now no real reason.

Forcing individuals to accept homosexuality on equal terms means that the door is being flung open to the other taboos which stand alongside it – bestiality, under age sex, incest and so on. In the name of individual rights and equality, our society is being propelled towards a world where wholesale sexual degeneracy -  degenerate because it is destructive of  society’s health - is not just tolerated, but encouraged. This is the world of the Marquis De Sade, the herald of modern liberal attitudes towards sex, who regarded morality as an invention and advocated unbridled sexual licence as a means of destroying it and the Christian culture of society

The Sadness and the Pity of being Homosexual

Homosexuality is proclaimed by the ‘gay’ lobby and the liberal left such as David Cameron who represent it as merely a life style choice, as valuable and as to be esteemed as any other. It is not.  As noted, the raising of children is an individual's and society's primary function. So homosexuality which is in opposition to this function can never be as valuable to the homosexual and is of little use to society.

Therefore to be a confirmed homosexual is as the Pope has indicated, to suffer from an abnormal   psychosexual condition which is likely to be desperately sad for the person involved because it isolates from the mainstream of human experience and always will.

Homosexuals can have no loving relationship with the opposite sex which accepts the differences of the sexes and forms a whole which is greater than the sexes are apart. They can have no normal family relationships to deepen and round their characters. Lesbians can conceive by artificial means, but male homosexuals can have no children of their own by normal means to love and care for and who can cherish them. They can now adopt or use a female to produce a child with their sperm but in these cases their own interests and those of equality are being elevated above those of the children, whose own psychosexual development and later capacity to have a normal family life will almost certainly be badly affected.

Childless homosexuals can have no expectations for the future, except perhaps a lonely old age. Their sense of themselves, their social and political outlook, is stunted, it must of necessity  lack that full sense of the ongoing stream of life – of one generation linking with past and passing on to the next, which is  so necessary for a rounded personality, political foresight, social realism and a healthy society.  And the tragedy doesn’t stop with the homosexual. Homosexuality is a tragedy too for the homosexual’s parents, who might have hoped for grandchildren.

There is no such thing as Homosexual ‘Marriage’

What of homosexual  contracts or ‘marriage?’  which Cameron says lyingly is of equal worth to heterosexual marriage?There is of course no such thing. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in an arrangement whose fundamental intention is the begetting of progeny and the raising of them.  For this reason it accords with our Darwinian attitudes, even if having children does not or cannot occur.

Homosexual joinings are mere pale imitations of this institution which repel us for those same Darwinian reasons and will continue to do so whatever Cameron and the other left -liberals might say and however relaxed attitudes might otherwise be.

Because they lack the fundamental purpose, responsibilities and joining of difference of real marriage, homosexual relationships cannot carry the same moral weight as does real marriage, even when the partners in such a ’marriage’ cannot be anything else other than homosexual, are in a long term relationship and there is love between them, as for example appears to be the case with  Elton John and David Furnish and Peter Mandleson and his Brazilian boyfriend.

                                                   Peter Mandelson and his Brazilian Boyfriend

So how should Society treat Homosexuality?

One way of dealing with our natural attitudes of distaste for  homosexual practice is to look at how we deal with other natural tendencies which are also necessary for the health of society but which do not carry so much ideological baggage. Aggression is necessary for self-protection and provides the drive which motors society. Nevertheless it is controlled for the common good as is the provocation of aggression. And attitudes regarding homosexual practice should be controlled in a similar way. Homosexuals are entitled to the protection of society just as society is entitled to protection from being provokedor disturbed by too overt and aggressive homosexual behaviour. 

Conclusion

The Left’s agenda of equality for Homosexual Practice is a classic instance of its failure to recognise the fundamental importance of our genetic inheritance and the devastating results of its belief that legislation can and should change human nature out of all recognition. Its attitudes are however selective, for while it champions homosexuality at least partly on the basis that homosexuals cannot help what they are, it fails to recognise that ordinary people cannot help their  response to it.

While what is natural is not necessarily right according to some ways of thinking, it is the best guide we have. For a certainty, generally speaking the the further we stray from what is a natural to us, the less healthy society is - the more stresses strains and unintended consequences there are. However much we might like and respect individual homosexuals, we should be under no obligation to treat homosexuality as equal when for fundamental, natural reasons we are unable to do so and when to try to do so is to undermine the foundations of civilisation which rest on our human nature.

Society has a habit of taking fundamental tendencies and turning them into iron clad inflexible rules which are oppressive because they deny reasonable choice. That has certainly been the case with homosexuality in the past. Charity, respect for freedom and the acknowledgement that some homosexuals at least are incapable of being anything else and enjoy long term, loving relationships, demands that such homosexuals' preferences and choices should be respected. They should be free to get on with their lives unmolested. 

The same considerations however should be accorded the rest of us.