Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Shedding Light on the Gay Issue

Part 4/9 (to see other parts of the article, click on the pages at the bottom)

by Sorotzkin, Dr. Benzion (See all authors)

Compassion

Many who support the gay agenda do so in the name of compassion. The first question we need to ask is if it is compassionate to pretend a symptom is not reflective of an emotional disorder if it truly is? If someone has a medical condition that required urgent care but he is in denial, would it be compassionate to join his denial? Of course, gay activists claim that homosexuality isn’t reflective of an emotional disorder. That is a scientific question that should be explored via research and not political rhetoric. If it is indeed reflective of an emotional disorder then it certainly wouldn’t be compassionate to pretend otherwise. As mentioned above, there is evidence that emotional disorders are more common in the homosexual community.

Shaping the debate by attaching the label “homophobia” on anyone who believes that homosexuality is reflective of a disorder is another example of the political genius of radical gay activists who invented this term in order to delegitimize anyone who dares question any aspect of their agenda.

In addition, it is important to remember that the gay community is not asking for compassion or even acceptance. They are demanding that society accept their view of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. In the earliest years of the gay movement they only demanded protection from harassment and discrimination (i.e., compassion). They reacted with great indignation when anyone suggested that they will eventually demand gay marriage. Yet from articles written by gay activists for internal consumption it is clear that full equality - including gay marriage - was their ultimate goal from the beginning.

One component of compassion is being non-judgmental. It is unfortunate, though, that many people equate refraining from being judgmental with avoiding forming a judgment. So, if someone forms a judgment that homosexuality is undesirable - either for religious reasons, since the Torah explicitly prohibits homosexual behavior, and/or for mental health reasons, because there is evidence that homosexuality is associated with higher incidents of emotional disorders – the person is accused of being judgmental, or worse a “homophobe.” This is, of course, nonsense. In fact, it is a deliberate misuse of a scientific term for political gain. A phobia refers to a fear that is patently irrational. Whatever one thinks of the belief that the Torah forbids homosexual acts or that it is indicative of emotional distress, it certainly doesn’t qualify for irrational.

A gay acquaintance once insisted that I “must be” judgmental of him since I believe that homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality. I responded that I could prove that he was judgmental of me. He protested vigorously, as being a self-proclaimed liberal, he sees being judgmental as a major sin. I reminded him that he was a vegetarian who believed that it was unethical to eat meat. So, by his own criteria, he must be judgmental of someone like myself who eats meat (he might even label me as “vegi-phobic”). I, on the other hand, believe that one can have a judgment without being personally judgmental of the other person.

It should go without saying that we should treat all human beings, regardless of their condition, with respect and compassion. That is not the issue. The question of how to relate to homosexuals as individuals should not be confused with the question of how to deal with homosexuality.