After debating with a few people, I've come to realize that there is another root to the homosexual debate. Before, I addressed one root is how someone views sex. This is still true, but there is also another one that is equally important. This root is the underlying mentality to "follow your heart."
This idea is actually quite controversial. Even though it appears often in movies, stories, graduation ceremonies, etc., people are divided on the idea. This in turn can impact their views on gay sex (being gay is not evil in my opinion and also not important to the logical root of the debate). When I see people saying that people are "born gay," I see that they are arguing for the ideal of "following your heart is right." When people are claiming it doesn't matter how one is born, they are arguing against "following your heart is right." Which side is right? Perhaps we should investigate how both sides are propagated.
As hinted above, culture is the one promoting the idea of "following your heart." When we see people using this idea to determine a course of action, they are the heroes and it's always right. When celebrities speak of their success, they say the same thing. Movies often promote the idea "If you you work hard, your passion will see you through against all odds." It actually sounds a lot like faith. It gives us hope and when are depressed, we want something we can hope for. Also, we tend to think of ourselves as the heroes and as good people. I believe the nature of man is good because the perfection of man is to love. In addition, we want to do what we believe in. Lastly, we don't like being wrong. If we say that we did what our heart told us to do, then we feel like that is a good excuse because we are the valid authority of saying what our hearts told us to do. So who are likely to abide by this opinion? Proponents of gay sex, artists, youth, culture, and businesses. The last two I'll explain later.
In opposition, these people hold that "following your heart" is not a good determinant of morality. They are more likely to adhere to religious morality or the morality I proposed before about love. Now it is understandable that proponents of "following your heart" believe the one about love to be the same as their idea, and it can be. As mentioned before, we like to think of ourselves as the heroes and naturally good. It's not exactly false, but not exactly true either according to the other side. These people see that following your heart can drive to both good and evil.
Culture tends to promote only the heroes as following their heart, not the villains. However, the villains are doing that. Extremists and the mob are following their heart when they commit crimes. So if your heart is ordered towards love, you might go that way. However, if it's ordered towards selfishness, it's going to go toward evil. An apt analogy is fire, as passion is often described as. If controlled, it's beautiful and beneficial. It can light dark caves, cook food, fight wild beasts, generate energy, send messages, keep us warm, save our lives, etc. However, when fire is uncontrolled, you cannot do any of those things. Instead it burns like a wildfire where death is the result. That's why people say you need to guide your heart with reason and discipline.
People on this side also see that passion is not enough to get you anywhere. I can be passionate about tennis, but without well-functioning arms, I cannot play well. Also, if I do follow my passion, I might actually waste my talents and potential. I saw a good summary of this view in a video by Mike Rowe.
Now your purpose in life may very well be your dream. Dreams are good as they give us hope and direction in life, but I've noticed something about a dream. It can not only make you always dissatisfied by being something impossible to obtain, it can distract you from recognizing what is good in front of you. You might have a dream to marry a certain celebrity, but if you are always comparing your date with that celebrity, you're never going to develop a real bond.
Another example is that I used to dream of a fantasy girl who was perfectly beautiful in my opinion. Hair color, height, hair style, etc. were all determined. I found one girl who pretty much fit the description almost too perfectly. That did not work well. However, I happened to get introduced to this other girl who definitely did not fit any of the criteria except in that she was a girl my age. What I realized was that this was the girl perfect for me, and she became my wife. My love has only grown for her as time has gone on. So dreams are those hopeful goals to help us through life and develop ourselves until we find something that is truly good. Some people don't have dreams and they are content. They are happy and enjoying life. When you are satisfied, you really don't desire anything more for yourself.
So who will hold this opinion? I assume Mike Rowe based off his video. Also religious groups that claim man is imperfect. In addition, people who believe that just following your heart will only increase your selfishness, not help your ability to love. It's not a question about whether man is good or evil, but rather that man is corrupted and can become evil if left unguided. Whether it's nature or nurture, it does not matter initially. By the time people can make choices, they are either on the selfish side of things, or loving side of things. However, whatever people are exposed to the most will impact their views. So if they exposed to selfishness a lot, they might adopt that mentality. Kids tend to imitate what they see from both parents and culture, especially the media.
So why will culture and businesses promote following your heart? Because it's an easy sell. Not only does it sound nice, it sets the stage to sell you stuff, including things you don't need. Since it can promote selfishness, the culture of selfishness loves it. It also knows it can create "needs" and therefore force you to buy into them. Also, if you make people feel good about themselves, they tend to do business with you. Therefore, I argue it's manipulation.
Every man has negative inclinations and we cannot let them control us. This is why people oppose the idea of following your heart. Consider what it means to follow your heart. It essentially means let your passions control you. This also means that whatever you are inclined to do is okay. So if you want something then it's okay to take it such as love (in the case of adultery), money (theft), and objects (theft). This chain of logic eventually means that greed is okay, lust is okay, envy is okay, and many other desires which increase selfishness. However, this means this is opposed to the key of morality I have mentioned before as this can hinder your ability to love. It's also not good for society at all.
The idea of following your heart probably had a good intention. It probably had faith that the people who would act on it were the people who are inclined to do good. However, it can also result in uncontrolled and misguided hatred. Every fallen hero becomes a villain because of this philosophy. They followed their passion and got disappointed. But since they were following a passion, they weren't improving their ability to love. Passion is good, but only when controlled to increase your love. In other words, your love should not be defined by your passion, but your passion should be defined by your love.
N. D. Moharo
P. S. I didn't link to the first post above because I wanted people to read this one first. Now if you want to examine the idea of sex, you can click here.