I find it quite extraordinary that here in 2012, there are still those who refuse to accept that homosexuals are, as as the song says “Born This Way”. Were this not the case then what would be the point in “coming out”. Surely it would be preferable to keep the closet door closed and avoid unnecessary marginalization of themselves to friends, families and associates. The Catholic church in Canada is currently even finding the usage of the word "gay" or "gay/strait alliance" unacceptable. Such intolerant semantic nonsense is a bit rich coming from an organisation with such an appalling record of sexual misconduct by its so called God's representatives on earth. In an even more extreme example, according to the evangelistic ignorati of Southern US, they will be destined to ”Buyurn iyn Hayell”!!
The suggestion that homosexuality is a temptation against which all should safeguard themselves is perfectly absurd.. For the vast majority of heterosexuals, particularly males, the mere thought of same sex intimacy which includes anal sex, is quite abhorrent. The question of "temptation" with respect to the healthily sexually normal rank and file is essentially a non-issue and invalid.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is perhaps a contrary argument to be made in one specific case involving females who have frequently suffered from the actions of abusive husbands or partners. In these unfortunate circumstances, is it not likely that those so mistreated could possibly seek a relationship with other lonely women who have trodden a similar unhappy path to themselves in an effort to achieve some measure of security, happiness and even physical intimacy? Is this sinful too?
It is a remarkably unperceptive person who cannot discern human anomalies that can exist both in appearance as well as spoken and body language. For example, the notion of of a mincing male designer of haute couture having anything in common either physically or emotionally with all-in wrestling is absurd. Similarly a robust female coach of a hockey team is rather unlikely to be interested in needlepoint and lace making. Not surprisingly the foregoing and other similar instances are frequently associated with tendencies towards homosexuality. The only question to be answered is whether there is an overlap between the overall range of male and female traits. Should this be the case, then surely ambiguity is to be expected together with a understandable sexual preference for the same gender.
Using Coreldraw, I have cobbled together below a somewhat crude example of what I mean graphically. It takes the form of arbitrarily positioned circles representing male or female psyche traits respectively with an overlapping hatched “area of ambiguity” together with an equally arbitrary line of demarcation. Using the previous examples it would seem self evident that the sexual traits of the male designer would position him towards the right side of the "Man" traits circle and similarly the female hockey coach would be inclined towards the left of that of the "Woman". They may or may not cross the line of demarcation. Furthermore, however inconvenient it might be to the judgmental, in extreme cases there are transsexual people who possess physical sexual characteristics of both genders. What are they to do? It is not uncommon among these unfortunates that to enhance their quality of life, they resort to medical procedures -including surgery to bestow a physical configuration more in accord with their sense of emotional identity and peace of mind. Is this also a sin?
As time goes on, due to the relaxation of societal acceptability, the traditional behavioural differences between the sexes is declining. In the case of modern females, now no longer required to behave in a “ladylike” manner, participation in such activities as boxing or other extreme sports is not uncommon. By the same token, male nurses or primary school teachers are becoming progressively mainstream. These activities are by no means indicative of sexual ambivalence but reveal that without artificial societal constraints placed upon them, the differences are perhaps less than previously thought.
In conclusion, I would briefly address the assertions of religious zealots that homosexuality is against Biblical teaching. Within its pages it is possible to find reference or justification both for and against virtually any belief. Starting at the beginning, it is only necessary to reach Chapter 19 of Genesis; to read how Lot’s daughters got their father drunk, had sex with him and became pregnant. Verse 36 nicely encapsulates the story “Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father”. Even earlier, in Chapter 4, Verse 17, we are told that "Cain knew his wife". As the son of Adam and Eve, who did he marry? It must have been his sister. Does this mean that whilst homosexuality is taboo, incest is acceptable?
