by Tony Copple

In the movie The Cider House Rules, Homer Wells (played by Tobey McGuire, who later played Spiderman) is intrigued by a list of regulations posted in the cider house. They seem to have been written for an earlier age. In the story at this point, Homer is wrestling with a moral dilemma. His conscience is telling him that abortion is wrong, but he is thrust into a situation where he feels he has little choice but to perform an abortion on a young girl (Rose), who has been made pregnant by her father (Mr Rose, who had given his daughter the name Rose Rose) and her life is in danger. The wages of sin is death – for the father – but Homer survives to return to the medical profession as the doctor in the orphanage where he grew up. (As an irrelevant aside, Tobey McGuire grew up in an orphanage, which may account for his great portrayal of Homer.)

Do rules become outdated? The cider house rules had nothing to do with abortion, but for Homer he agonized over whether the rules he had followed in the past still applied. That seems to me the central question in the current debate about same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church of Canada, watched closely by the worldwide Anglican community.

Some rules change, some don’t.

God made Eve to give companionship to Adam, and for continuation of the species. When I was a teenager I sometimes wondered how early man and woman ever found out how to conceive, but animals showed me the role of instinct. God gave Adam instinct in good measure. The result was Cain. I wonder what would have happened to the race if Adam had been homosexual.

There is continued debate over whether homosexuality is learned, or people are born homosexual. Let’s tackle the more difficult of these first and assume homosexuality is not learned.

God’s creation provides for infinite diversity in nature, and whether we are human or a snowflake, there is none other the same. This is surely a key element of his design, and for his good reasons. But with such a design comes the probability of anomalies as DNA connections make those infinite combinations. In a rare case in the news recently a 5-year old has a genetic mutation that blocks production of the protein myostatin which limits muscle growth; he has bulging arm and leg muscles and can hold 3-Kg weights with arms extended. Not all diversity is good. Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy and other conditions show that though God undoubtedly loves all his creations more than we can possibly imagine, to prevent such aberrations would have required him limit the extent of diversity, something he was not prepared to do, since it could also limit extreme intelligence, even extreme godliness.

Hence we encounter homosexuality. It’s not the original prototype, but a result of nature’s diversity, and no less a part of creation.

Homosexuals are endowed with remarkable talent. The creative arts have allowed homosexuals to shine. They are often articulate and of high intelligence. For these reasons they are influential in society, and are well capable of welcoming some who would be considered heterosexual to their lifestyle. This gives rise to the alternate theory, that homosexuality is learned (and taught). This is resented by heterosexuals, and when I was at school (single sex), a number of homosexuals were expelled for making such advances. Prisons are also places where such activity has been rampant.

Now comes the tough part. Homosexuals are not lacking in sexual instincts, both love and orgasmic, and sex is the strongest force in the world. Without its overpowering intensity there would be no pedophiles, rapists, incest, pornography. There would be no people; the race would have died out when Eve experienced the pain of childbirth.

So homosexuals seek other methods of sexual gratification. It is these, particularly male versions, that have alienated homosexuals from heterosexuals. While the body is clearly designed specifically for heterosexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse is analogous to putting sand in the gas pipe, or gas in the radiator; it sounds painful, artificial, abominable, detestable (to God), and not discussable. Writing about it is no fun either. Homoerotic activity appears to most heterosexuals as revolting, and in a word this is the force behind their rejection of the lifestyle.

Were it not for these aspects, I dare say platonic homosexual friendships would be acclaimed by all as gifts from God, as are all platonic friendships.

Over the past decade, three social phenomena have risen out of all proportion in the consciousness of populations: homosexuality, pornography, and the Internet; there is a connection. The homosexual lobby began 50 years ago, with ex-communist Harry Hay, who’s life goal was to make homosexuality respectable, and to this end he founded The Mattachine Society. In 1973 homosexual activists persuaded the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. Today’s momentum may be traced to a 1987 edition of Guide magazine, when Kirk and Pill outlined proposals for “The Overhauling of Straight America.” Harry Hay’s goal of changing the rules is being achieved in our time, and the majority is going along with the new rules.

We are now being told by a small group of bishops in this country that relationships based on homosexual acts are not only acceptable, but they are sanctified. This is a term normally reserved for use by God, as in the sacraments, including marriage. To ascribe sanctification to acts between same sex couples is a stretch that even Spiderman could not make. The overhaul of straight Canada is in progress, and the architects of the plans and schemes are being rewarded.

But those rules; what about them? Are they just for earlier times? The writers of the new “One” Bible have removed Paul’s negative comments about homosexuality. This is a Bible? What value the word of God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? Read instead Leviticus 18:22 – “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womenkind. It is an abomination" – to God. If it was then, it still is now. God has not changed his mind.

Furthermore, the old exhortations were not idle legalities. They had wisdom and prophecy built in to them. God knew that homosexual culture can break down traditional family life and and unrestricted would destroy whole civilizations, as it has done. Do we want to see ours destroyed because homosexual lobbyists have penetrated our cathedral walls?

Some rules change, some don’t.

The laws about women wearing hats in church and not speaking were based on social culture of the time, not doctrine, or biology. The rules about not eating pork were overturned in the new testament by direct word from God (Peter’s dream before meeting Cornelius). Far from being repealed, Paul emphasized the law as it applied to homosexuality. No, this rule does not change. It has stood the test of time because it was part of God’s creation, like a shock absorber limiting the total freedom of nature’s infinite diversity. It is like myostatin, but instead of limiting muscle growth it protects the human race. As I have described in an allegory “God’s duplication service”, nature took enormous pains to enable successive generations to improve.

Homer felt instinctively that abortion was wrong. He had watched when the father of an aborted child later suffered injury in the war that robbed him of his manhood, a cruel but appropriate punishment. But Homer had free will to realize that there were circumstances when abortion was justified. Do the rules offer us flexibility to encourage and bless homosexual relations? Not in a million years. Certainly not in three.

25 June 2004

Yes / No

Did you find this article helpful?