Dr. Andrew Corbett

When we refer to "The Moral Law" we are referring to that which is self evidently right or wrong and common to all people. Several countries, including our own, have their laws based on the Moral Law. This is referred to as: Common Law. It presumes that certain behaviour is never acceptable, and that other types of behaviour is always commendable.

After World War Two, when the International Court of Justice was set up, they were seeking for an acceptable way to prosecute Nazi war criminals. The legal problems with such an endeavour was that these Nazis had simply followed their existing national laws. Yet clearly their vile acts of cruelty demanded justice. The solution was to prosecute for obvious breaches of the Moral Law. The venue chosen for these Nuremberg Trials although ravaged by the results of numerous battles still had one ironic wall plaque intact: a copy of the ten commandments (which are based on the Moral Law).

How do we determine what the Moral Law encompasses? It is an intrinsic part of every human conscience. Breaches of the Moral Law become obvious when someone's health or well being suffers unnaturally. We know that murder is wrong partly because the victim's health is somewhat deteriorated. Similarly we know that an incestuous relationship between a father and his young daughter is wrong partly because it is inherently harmful at least for the daughter, and potentially very physically debilitating for any potential offspring which result. Therefore, the aspects of the Moral Law which it condemns as wrong is confirmed by the negative evidence it produces such as birth deformities from incestuous relationships. This list could go on when we examine the psychological impact that sexual abuse has on children, or the deep seated hurt experienced by the betrayed spouse after adultery.

When those who choose to practice homosexuality claim that their lifestyle is not immoral, their claims fly in the face of the evidence. Consider the following. The following research was compiled in 1994 and was published in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying. It compared 6,737 obituaries/death notices from 18 U.S. homosexual journals, with obituaries from 2 conventional newspapers. Researchers were seeking to discover what kind of effect the homosexual lifestyle had on life-span as compared to the life-span of heterosexuals.

* Source: "Legislating Morality, Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?", Geisler & Turek, Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1998:132

As you can see from the above table the evidence gathered about the homosexual lifestyle is that it generally reduced life span by almost 50%! Leaving aside religious convictions about homosexuality, the physical evidence is enough to question whether this is really the way humans were designed to interact. Researcher, Patricia Morgan, notes in her book Children As Trophies-

Reports of life satisfaction have long been considered an important guide to psychological and social well-being. In a major US survey, 60.9% of heterosexuals compared to 46.4% of homosexuals said they were "extremely" or "very" happy with their life over the past 12 months. In turn, 11.5% of heterosexuals compared to 20% of homosexuals said that they were "fairly unhappy" or "unhappy most of the time". In the same study, 67.5% of the married, compared to 39.6% of the divorced reported being happy with their personal lives, and 8.7% of the married and 21.4% of the divorced reported being unhappy with their personal lives. In turn, 51.2 % of those below the poverty line compared to 59.5% of the economically disadvantaged reported being happy with their lives, while 19.4% of the 'poor' and 13.1% of the 'rich' reported unhappiness Homosexuals thus rated their lives less happy than the married, and about as unhappy as the divorced and the impoverished.

Homosexuals also suffer disproportionately from a range of morbid conditions compared to heterosexuals, particularly sexually transmitted diseases, like gonorrhea, syphilis, Hepatitis A & B, anorectal warts and AIDS (in the latest report, to June 2001, 13,589 cases of HIV infection in men were due to homosexual intercourse out of a total of 19,725, or 69%, and in the year to June 1997, 871 men died of AIDS). Homosexual practices frequently result in physical injuries, not least to the rectum. Homosexuals are also disproportionately involved in alcohol and substance abuse.

* Source: "CHILDREN AS TROPHIES?" The Christian Institute, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 2002:86-87

Reasons for prohibiting the legalising of same-sex unions-

1. Just as general detrimental health and welfare outcomes form the minimal basis for prohibiting incest, rape, or pædophilia, the health and welfare outcomes of homosexuality also demonstrates that it is similarly detrimental. To sanction and even encourage such detrimental practices is irresponsible. Based on even modest medical research findings, the human body is simply not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Conversely, the opposite is absolutely true: that sexual activity is perfectly designed to be between a man and a woman.

2. Marriage is the union of one man with one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.The least social science evidence shows that this is the healthiest arrangement for a man or woman. Conversely, the evidence shows that long-term relationships between same sex couples is detrimental to their health. Why would a society encourage what it knows to be unhealthy?

3. The appeal to dismiss Morality as merely a religious bias is a faux par. Morality is supra-religious. It is also trans-cultural. Coupled with this is a number of myths regarding morality. For example-

Myth #1	Consent overrides morality: Since when? Just because an immoral act takes place between "two consenting adults" it is claimed that this somehow overrides all moral boundaries. What if the Jews of WWII had "consented" to the holocaust? Would this had made the Nazi attempts to annihilate them moral??? Therefore the appeal that what takes place between "consenting" adults renders their activity moral-nuetral is absurd.
Myth #2	Times have changed, and we have to move on: This language is used to make the case for abandoning morality by portraying it as inhibitive and unenlightened. We could rightly re-word this sentiment to: We want the moral climate to change so we have to woo culture and society to move away from time-honoured moral boundaries. But the Moral Law has proven time and time again to be in the best interests and welfare of any society. Far from being unenlightened it is those who willfully reject it that are demonstrating unenlightenment to the obvious health and welfare benefits it brings. Simply because times change, by which we understand that the factors of change include- fashion, architecture, technology, language- does not demand that morality needs to be abandoned! This is absurd.
Myth #3	Discrimination is immoral! No, unfairness and injustice is immoral. Each time any of us make a choice we are discriminating. Discriminating in itself is not wrong. In fact, the next time you walk up to a busy road and decide to cross or not to cross you had better look both ways and make a reasonable discriminating choice! Because choose wrong and it could be very detrimental to your health! To claim that same sex couples should not be deprived legalised marriage union on the basis of Anti-Discrimination laws is an abuse of such laws. Marriage restricted to one man to one woman is not discrimination since it is fair and reasonable that their union is healthy, in their best welfare, and likely to form the security needed to bring children into this world. Therefore, it is not unfairly discriminatory to prohibit the scope of marriage where these outcomes are not possible! This alone rules out any legitimate claim made by the homosexual lobby for marriage rights.
Myth #4	Intolerance is immoral: No. Actually the opposite is usually true. When the world community tolerates genocide being carried out by a foreign government or dictatorship and does nothing (tolerance), they are being immoral! The appeal for tolerance is dealt with further in greater detail below :

Many homosexuals are plagued by guilt. They reason that the source of their guilt is society's attitude toward them. We reason that the source of anyone's guilt is the result of a violated conscience (where an intuitive understanding of the Moral Law is written). Knowing that married people are happier, healthier, and wealthier than merely cohabiting people, and knowing that monogamously faithful lifelong sexual relationships are healthier than promiscuous ones, the Homosexual Lobby reasons that if they are granted the same access to marriage, then they too could enjoy all the health and social outcomes of married heterosexual people. But the evidence disagrees. In fact, it shows that it is even more harmful to a homosexual's health to be a long term sexual relationship with one person.

Therefore, even if we dispense with perfectly valid religious and moral arguments, or ignore the disastrous affect it has on children involved, the social and medical evidence alone demands that as a society we do all we can to absolutely discourage homosexuality. If some terrorist was proposing to introduce a virus into our society which would reduce life-spans by nearly 50%, we would take all measures to prevent it from happening! Why then would we endorse behaviour which in affect produces the same outcomes?

But the inevitable appeal is made for "tolerance". You never 'tolerate' an enjoyable night out. You never 'tolerate' a favourite meal. You only ever have to 'tolerate' what is either wrong or not right. When the Gay Lobby appeals for tolerance, they are in affect tacitly admitting that their lifestyle is wrong. We agree.

There are good people who struggle with confusion over their sexual identity. But our source of self worth is not tied to our sexuality! Our intrinsic worth is in our humanity. For those struggling with their sexual identity and choosing to uphold the Moral Law, society applauds you. No-one was ever harmed by being deprived of sex. As people of worth we are not defined by our sexual identity or activity, but by Divine image we all bear. The greatest need in a person's life is not to express themselves sexually, but to discover how to be cleansed from the defilement caused by our inevitable breaches of the Moral Law.

In this sense it is a myth promulgated by the Gay Lobby that the Christian Church are their enemies. Friends don't hide the truth, or directly lie. No, the Christian Church is a dear friend because we care enough to tell the truth.

None of us are really looking for toleration, we're really looking for compassion and true love.

© Dr. Andrew Corbett, July 22nd 2004, Legana, Tasmania

More

Gay-Marriage?

www.andrewcorbett.com