Is There a Good, Secular Argument Against Homosexuality?

"The only issue is that everybody has their own thing, and as long as it's two consenting adults, I guess I don't see the harm in it." – Bernadette from The Big Bang Theory

This is one of the most difficult (and most personal) questions I've ever had to face. It's been at the back of my mind for years, and I've already published the essence of what I'm about to say on Quora, but this is the first time I'm attempting to collect everything I've learned about this subject so far and turn it all into one hopefully coherent, decent, and perhaps surprising answer.

The question is difficult mainly because of the way it's formulated. There's that word "secular" there, by which I mean an argument that has nothing to do with religious beliefs or spiritual matters. An argument that doesn't invoke God at all, nor does it appeal to His authority. Something that is entirely detached from the idea that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. And it has to be "good", by which I simply mean rational and convincing – especially for someone like me, who experiences same-sex attraction firsthand.

Well, Is There Anything?

My apologies if this is a bit disappointing, but I'm not going to get into weak arguments that seem strong only to those who have no experience whatsoever with same-sex attraction, like, homosexuality is wrong because a same-sex relationship can't produce children, or because it's unnatural (biologically speaking), or because it's rare (statistically speaking) and therefore a deviation from the norm, or because some people find it disgusting, or because it's lustful, not loving, or because many gay people, men especially, tend to be promiscuous. When you're same-sex attracted, these arguments are laughable at best and deeply offensive at worst, and trust me, they go absolutely nowhere with someone who is personally affected by homosexuality.

What I've been looking for is something much more serious and much more powerful. I guess it goes without saying that, since this issue is so personal to me, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. I don't think it would be very far from the truth to say that, in some shape or form, I've come across every secular argument against homosexuality, and I've heard every attempt (both genuine and dishonest) to make sense of God's prohibition against it. I've weighed each and every one of them on the scales of my feelings for guys, and I've come to the same conclusion each time: "No, if you think this is a strong argument, you're wrong. It doesn't even begin to make me doubt and question the subjective rightness and beauty of my same-sex desires. Next."

That hasn't changed much since I started thinking about all of this. So, I'm willing to put it out there clearly and straightforwardly: I know of no secular argument against homosexuality that I find genuinely convincing. None. (And, honestly, after all this time, I can't say I'm expecting to find one anytime soon. I'm still open, just not very hopeful. But if you think you have a good one, please, by all means, send it to me. I'd like to consider it.) When I first realised this, I was deeply troubled. More than that, I was really angry with God. I basically said to Him, "Your word on this matter makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well just say that everyone should write with their right hand and lefties are evil. Because that's about how absurdly random Your prohibition against homosexuality seems to me."

But this was troubling in a different way as well. Not only was I unable to find peace with God's word in the privacy of my own heart and mind, but I also knew that if any of my non-Christian friends ever asked me why I believed that homosexuality was wrong, I would have nothing intelligent to say really, so I would be seen as some sort of irrational, bigoted fundamentalist who's got nothing more than "it's wrong because God says so", which is just embarrassing. I was concerned about my own reputation for sure, but I also didn't want God to be seen as some kind of cosmic killjoy, even though part of me was very much temped to believe that He was indeed the divine dispenser of at least one arbitrary rule that does nothing but makes my life (and the lives of many others like me) inconceivably more difficult than it has to be.

I was terrified of this question, because I couldn't answer it. I was expected to, both internally and externally, but, in this particular and most personal area, I just couldn't defend my faith at all. And I knew it.

Let's Turn It Around

But, at some point, a thought came into my mind that changed my perspective on this issue quite a lot. For some reason, I've always assumed that I was the one who had to defend his beliefs, because most secular people today (and many professing Christians as well, I might add) think that homosexuality is natural and acceptable. But that wasn't always the case. There was a time, and not too long ago, when the vast majority of people believed that homosexuality was immoral, and it was a small minority of "outcasts" who had to argue for the goodness of same-sex relationships in an atmosphere where virtually everybody disagreed with them. So the question they had to answer was the exact opposite of what I've been asking: What are some good arguments for homosexuality?

Why do we no longer ask this question? Is it perhaps because we think it's been answered once and for all? It's as if it's obvious to almost everybody that same-sex relationships are good (I'm talking primarily about Western culture here of course), and it's only the "backward" people such as myself who are supposed to defend their "ancient" and "oppressive" views. Now, I'm not suggesting at all that my original question is somehow wrong or irrelevant, far from it, I just think it's not the only question we should consider. I've already acknowledged that, from a secular perspective, I haven't got a satisfying answer to why homosexuality might be wrong. But I think it's also worth exploring why so many people think it's right. This, I have found, leads to some rather interesting discoveries, and facilitates progress in this discussion.

What Do You Find Sexually Acceptable and Reprehensible?

You see, what this question does is it makes you think about and formulate your own sexual ethics. Your own set of rules pertaining to sex and sexuality, so to speak. Now, the good news is, these are not imposed on you by anything or anyone else: these are your rules. They may very well have been influenced by a number of factors beyond your control, such as your culture or the way you were brought up, but these are still fundamentally your sexual boundaries within which you think acceptable sexual activity can take place.

Very few people would say there are no such boundaries. In this day and age, consent is probably the most important rule of all. I'll come back to that later.

At this point, I think it would be good to revisit why so many people believe that homosexuality is acceptable. Is it because they are operating under the assumption that "as long as it's two consenting adults", it's fine, as Bernadette said? I'd say that's a fair starting point, given that Bernadette arguably speaks for Hollywood, and by extension, for the whole Western world. And in a secular setting, I genuinely think that's a fair point. It makes sense. I can live out my freedom in full as long as I'm not violating anybody else's freedom. In other words, if we both want it, we can do whatever we want. That's the rule. Okay. But let's have a closer look at Bernadette's words, because, as it so often happens, the devil is in the details.

"As long as it's two consenting adults, I guess I don't see the harm in it." Alright, let's run with that. It seems liberal enough. Biblically speaking, or, if you don't like that language, traditionally speaking, there are at least eight forms of unacceptable sexual relations: polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia, incest, rape, fornication, and adultery. Now, as far as I can tell, the "two-consenting-adults rule" still allows for half of these: homosexuality, incest, fornication, and adultery. Are you sure you're okay with all of these? If so, at least you're consistent. If not, then perhaps it's time to refine the definition of your sexual boundaries, because, apparently, they don't reflect your sexual ethics very accurately.

I mean, let's just consider each of these four "transgressions" very briefly. Fornication? Virtually everybody does that nowadays. Very, very few people save themselves for marriage. Homosexuality? As I've said before, it's overwhelmingly accepted in the West, and it's becoming more and more acceptable in the rest of the world as well. What about incest? Now that's probably more divisive. What do you think? What if it's two guys who happen to be brothers? Is that okay? Why? Why not? How about adultery if your spouse never finds out about it? Is that wrong? Why? Why not? Interesting questions. All things considered, maybe the idea of "two consenting adults" is already too liberal for you. Or maybe you find it too restrictive still. Decide for yourself and adjust your sexual boundaries accordingly.

Why Not Be More Liberal?

Now, if you found at least one of these four forms of sexual relations unacceptable, then I'm afraid you'll find what I'm going to talk about next rather uncomfortable – perhaps even disturbing. If you didn't, then your sexual ethics are probably defined quite well by the two-consenting-adults rule. Which is fine, but I'd like to challenge that. And not by suggesting that something you think is right might be wrong, but by proposing that something you think is wrong might actually be right.

Basically, what I'm going to do now is I will take Bernadette's two-consenting-adults rule (which, by the way, is the general rule of a whole lot of people when it comes to sexual ethics), and question each of its three components to find out why they are so important and what would happen if we dispensed with them. I guess it's hardly a spoiler that the other four traditionally unacceptable forms of sexual relations (polygamy, bestiality, paedophilia, and rape) would enter the picture as well, but let's look at the words "two consenting adults" one by one.

Why 'Two'?

"One wife? One God, that I can understand, but one wife! That is not civilised. It is not generous." – Sheik Ilderim from Ben-Hur

Historically speaking, polygamy isn't that controversial at all. Men used to have multiple wives, and in some cultures, they still do. What's wrong with that if they all love each other? If it works for them, who are we to judge? And what if it's a straight man and two bisexual women? Or what if it's three bisexual men and two bisexual women? You get the point. Should we be so hung up on numbers that we restrict romantic and sexual love to just two people? As far as I'm concerned, if God is out of the picture, a perfectly reasonable argument could be formulated in favour of polygamy, and a more than understandable attitude could and perhaps should be adopted that says: "If you want to be with just one person, suit yourself. But don't you dare tell me that's the only right way. I love my three wives and two husbands. It works well. We're all happy." Would you say this person is wrong?

Why 'Consenting'?

Here we go. The sacred rule that no one dares to touch. And for obvious reasons, of course. Question the legitimacy of consent, and you will inevitably end up questioning the illegitimacy of rape as well. This is perhaps the main reason why most people treat consent as the unquestionable foundation of all sexual boundaries. But there's much more to this concept than what's glaringly evident, so I don't want to shy away from discussing and even challenging it, despite the fact that I know I'm going to offend a lot of people.

First of all, what is consent? On the one hand, this question sounds rather dull, because the answer seems so clear and simple: consent is agreement. In the context of sexual activity between two adults, consent means they both want it. That's it. But legally speaking, consent is a much more complex idea. There are many factors to be considered besides the actual agreement, such as the freedom and capacity of each party to consent. And this is merely the general frame of the legal structure; the details and intricacies pertaining to specific cases are virtually unlimited. Consequently, and unfortunately, the legal boundaries are inadequate to cover the complexities of all potential scenarios in real life, which can lead to unnecessary restrictions and various abuses of the law. Let me share an example:

Let's say a female teacher and one of her male students start dating and eventually choose to engage in sexual activity. Let's say she's 25, and he's 18. Their relationship has nothing to do with grades, manipulation, or abuse of any kind. They simply fell in love. That's it. That's the scenario. However unlikely you think this is, please stay with it for just a moment, because we're not talking about what's likely and unlikely here, but what's right and wrong. Such a relationship is illegal in many countries due to the power imbalance between the two parties. Should it be, though? Again, a perfectly reasonable argument could be formulated, at least in my opinion, against this "oppressive" law and for the much more liberal idea that the government should keep its crooked nose out of the private lives of two adults in love, no matter who they are.

But now imagine that the teacher does something that really, really upsets the student: she falls in love with one of her colleagues, explains this calmly and compassionately to her pupil, and breaks up with him on the spot. The young man feels betrayed and heartbroken, which, over time, grows into bitterness and resentment, and eventually into a desire for revenge. He knows the law, so he sues his teacher for her "inappropriate" and "unethical" relationship with him on the basis that he didn't have the freedom to consent because of her position of power as his teacher. The verdict is swift and devastating: she loses her job and is sent to jail as a consequence. Was that right? I hardly think so. What the student did was beyond malevolent. He used and abused the law to take revenge on his former love. That's utterly reprehensible in my estimation.

I won't go into any more detail here about the definition of consent and its potential problems, I just wanted to demonstrate that the topic is far from clear, and the resulting situations may be far from simple.

Secondly, assuming that we have a decent and working definition of consent, whose consent are we talking about exactly? It may sound obvious to a Western ear that it's the consent of the two parties directly involved, but that wasn't so obvious in the past, and in some cultures, it's not so obvious even today. In certain countries, sex is still only for marriage, and the consent of both sets of parents is required before the wedding can take place. Why did we get rid of that in the West? Perhaps our individualistic societies have got something to do with it.

And that's fine, things change, but why can't we reduce the number of people whose consent is needed even further? Is two the absolute minimum? It is, in the sense that one quite simply means rape. Nobody denies that, and I promise I'm not going to push this point too hard. But let's think about rape for a moment in a purely naturalistic setting: there is no God, morality is relative, and there is no ultimate justice. What's wrong with rape then? That it hurts people? So what? If we're all just cosmic accidents with no transcendent value, then what's so outrageous about a rapist who wants to maximise his pleasure irrespective of the amount of pain he causes to others? As Dostoevsky rightly observed, if there is no God, everything is permitted.

It sounds appalling, I know, but it follows logically from a naturalistic worldview. If we have no intrinsic value and there is no final judgment, then nothing is objectively right or wrong. We can do whatever we want. We may break the laws of our country in the process and be fined or even sent to jail as a consequence, but there's no reason to turn it into a moral issue. In other words, there's no reason to feel guilty for transgressing man-made boundaries, regardless of how harshly society condemns and punishes us for it. It's actually rather disturbing to contemplate how much a consistent naturalist and a psychopath have in common. At least in theory. Because most naturalists are not consistent. They don't live out their worldview. They act as if human beings are valuable, and they are outraged when they encounter crime and injustice.

Consider the chilling words of Mukesh Singh, a convicted rapist and murderer, who was executed in 2020 – along with three others – for his involvement in the horrific 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder:

"A decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy. [...] Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20% of girls are good. [...] People have a right to teach them a lesson. [...] She should have put up with it. [...] When being raped, she shouldn't fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they'd have dropped her off after 'doing her', and only hit the boy. [...] The death penalty will make things even more dangerous for girls. Now when they rape, they won't leave the girl like we did. They will kill her. Before, they would rape and say, 'Leave her, she won't tell anyone.' Now when they rape, especially the criminal types, they will just kill the girl. Death."

You can read more about him here. What do you think? Was he evil? Or just different? Perhaps a victim himself? Decide for yourself. But make sure you stay consistent with your professed worldview.

Why 'Adults'?

Okay, let's get the gross one out of the way first. The word "adults" implies humans, of course, and excludes, by definition, sexual relations between humans and animals. This particular boundary is more than self-evident to the vast majority of people. But since we're trying to be more liberal than what is currently acceptable, let's ask yet another uncomfortable question: What's wrong with bestiality? That it hurts animals? Well, first, that's not necessarily true, and second, just like in the case of rape, so what? If there is no God, humans and animals are not that different. As Richard Dawkins so memorably put it, we're all just dancing to the music of our DNA. So, bestiality is nothing more than one creature using and abusing another for its own pleasure and enjoyment. The strong survive and the weak perish. That's life.

But obviously this is not what Bernadette had in mind when she used the word "adults". She meant to exclude underage sexual activity, perhaps in general, but between adults and minors in particular. I'm interpreting her that way, because a romantic and sexual relationship between two minors, say, between a 15-year-old guy and a 14-year-old girl, is acceptable in many Western societies. They're young, they're growing, they're experiencing new and exciting desires, they want to experiment, and as long as they do it safely, it's their business. Okay. But how about a similar relationship between a minor and an adult? That is quite simply illegal if the minor is below the age of consent, but even if they are above it, such a relationship is still heavily frowned upon by society.

The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts. It varies from country to country, but, for example, in the United Sates it is between 16 and 18 (depending on the state), in the United Kingdom it's 16, in France it's 15, in Germany it's 14, etc. Now, my question is, since we're discussing homosexuality and pushing boundaries here, what's wrong with a 15-year-old boy having a romantic and sexual relationship with a 30-year-old man in Scotland, for instance? I'm not talking about rape or coercion or manipulation or grooming of any kind. They simply love each other and want to be together. That's it. Their relationship is currently illegal in the UK, and the man may go to jail for 14 years if they're ever found out.

And who gets to determine the age of consent anyway? It's 12 in the Philippines and 18 in Turkey. That's a huge difference, despite the fact that we're all human beings with very similar rates of physical, mental, emotional, and sexual development, regardless of where we are on the planet and which culture we belong to. If I were this 15-year-old guy in love with my 30-year-old partner, I would be deeply offended and outraged that, in spite of my maturity, because of some stupid law, I am pronounced unable to consent to being with the man I love. Absolute nonsense. More than that, it's evil.

There are activists, by the way, who think like this and argue for the goodness of romantic and sexual relationships between men and boys. Look up the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) if you're interested and want to know more. I'm not going to dignify them with a link.

And since we're practically talking about paedophilia here, let's not leave that word unmentioned, because there is still stigma attached to it. It's still a taboo. And for good reasons. But not for long if you ask me. Organisations like NAMBLA and other activists harbouring similar ideas may be condemned by society today, but if the history of people's attitudes towards homosexuality, for instance, is any indication, they won't be condemned for very long.

But it can be way worse than that. Almost unthinkably worse. So far, I've only mentioned fully consensual relationships between adults and minors. But now let's say there is grooming and manipulation involved, so the minor's consent is compromised. Or let's go even further. Let's say there is coercion and force, so the minor feels abused and violated even from his or her own perspective. Or, let's go all the way to one of the most horrific scenarios I can possibly imagine:

Let's say a grown man rapes and murders a 10-year-old girl. He gets rid of the body with such meticulous care that he never gets caught. She lived in a very poor country. She was homeless. She had no family or friends. No one misses her. No one even notices that she's gone. Her death causes no disruption whatsoever to the day-to-day life of society. He feels no remorse. He goes on to live a normal and even happy life.

Is this man evil? Why? This goes back to Dostoevsky's observation once again: if there is no God, everything is permitted. Even this. Even this. Because no one is evil, and nothing is wrong. Not really. People just are, and things just happen. That's it. What this man did, he did out of pure self-interest. He was just following his natural desires. He had a great time. A 10-year-old girl got raped and killed in the process. Tough luck for her.

Outrageous?

I hope so. I really, really hope so.

Examine Yourself

Having said all that, and knowing full well that I've touched on some very sensitive issues, I'd like to emphasise that my main purpose in this article was not to make you uncomfortable, or to scorn your views if you happen to come from a naturalistic background, but to make you think deeply and seriously about your own beliefs and convictions.

So, regardless of what you think about homosexuality in particular, whether you think it's absolutely fine or utterly reprehensible, I would like to invite you and encourage you, without any sense of superiority on my part, but with as much seriousness as I can possibly summon, to take some time and consider these two questions:

Are your sexual boundaries consistent with one another and with your professed worldview?

Are your sexual ethics grounded in objective reality or are they just personal preferences?

Conclusion

So, is there a good, secular argument against homosexuality? Not that I know of. That's as honest as I can be. I cannot condemn homosexuality in a secular setting.

But the thing is, and this is much more troubling to me, I cannot condemn rape or paedophilia either. At least not in an objective sense. Can you? If there is no God, everything is permitted. Morality is relative. Some things may be personally painful and socially destructive, but nothing is objectively evil. Not even the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder. Not even violating and killing a 10-year-old girl. Because there is no ultimate moral law. Because there is no transcendent moral Lawgiver.

Perhaps you can agree with that intellectually – at least to some degree. But you may also find that there is something in you that's furiously protesting against that: "This cannot be so. It shouldn't be so. Some things are objectively evil." That's the voice of your conscience. It's not just a "religious thing". It's an experiential reality. You know it's there, because you've felt it. You've heard its voice. And you also know that you can either follow it for your own good or ignore it at your own peril.

But where does that voice come from? C. S. Lewis argued that the "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver". And that puts us into an entirely different moral universe. One in which morality is not relative but objective. One in which there is a good God who gives us good laws.

So, I think our original question inevitably points us to God and thus to a new, more refined topic of discussion: Why does God say that homosexuality is a sin? For me, that's a much tougher nut to crack. I attempted to give a brief answer here, which you may find unsatisfying, but I hope and pray that either my insight into this very sensitive and personal matter will deepen over time, or I will continue to have sufficient trust in God despite the incompleteness of my understanding.

I pray the same for you.