Dr. Andrew Corbett
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
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.
TABLE 1: OMEGA STUDY RESULTS
STUDY COMPARING OBITUARIES OF 6,737 HOMOSEXUALS
TO A SAMPLE OF OBITUARIES OF HETEROSEXUALS
Median Age of Death
% living past 65 years old
|Single or Divorced Men
|Homosexual Men Without AIDS
|Homosexual Men Without AIDS With LTSP (Long
Term Sexual Partner)
|Homosexual Men With AIDS
less than 2%
|Homosexual Men With AIDS With a LTSP
less than 2%
* Source: "Legislating
Morality, Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?",
Geisler & Turek, Bethany House, Minneapolis,
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
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
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
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
Therefore the appeal that what takes place between "consenting" adults
renders their activity moral-nuetral is absurd.
Times have changed, and we have to move
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.
||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
||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
None of us are really looking for toleration,
we're really looking for compassion and true love.
Andrew Corbett, July 22nd 2004, Legana, Tasmania