The Sunday Mail
Bishop Prof Marvellous Mhloyi
The secular world currently has four labels of sexuality: straight/heterosexual (those attracted to the opposite sex); gay or lesbian (attracted to the same sex); bisexual (attracted to both males and females); and asexual (not attracted to any sex).
The question is: which of these sexualities is good for humanity, and which of these is biblical, and thus must be considered as valid by the church? The first question is answered from a secular demographic perspective using countries with the most and least approval rates of same-sex relationships.
The Global Post in 2013 interviewed people from 39 countries and asked them the following question: Should society accept homosexuality? Ten countries were most supportive of homosexuality, with approval rates ranging from 74 percent in Argentina and Italy, to 87 percent and 88 percent in Germany and Spain, respectively.
Ten countries which did not support homosexuality had disapproval rates ranging from 93 percent in Indonesia and Palestine, to 98 percent in Niger. Note that six of the ten countries which disapproved homosexuality are African.
For any population to be sustained, there must be people born to replace those who die, and there must be immigrants to replace emigrants.
The average number of children each woman must have for a population to replace itself (total fertility rate) must be about 2,1; fertility below that will make a population fail to replace itself.
It is important to note that the ten most supportive countries of homosexuality have total fertility rates below replacement, ranging from 1,3 in Spain to two in France in 2013.
Consistently, these countries had rates of population growth ranging from -2 in Germany to 1,8 in The Philippines.
On the other hand, countries with least approval of homosexuality had total fertility rates which are above replacement level, ranging from 2,2 in Tunisia to 7,6 in Niger. Commensurately, their rates of population growth ranged from 1,3 in Tunisia to 3,9 percent in Niger.
What does this mean?
This means that should the countries most supportive of homosexuality increase their levels of homosexuality. In addition to their current below replacement fertility levels and the declining rates of population growth, these countries will have aging populations, declining labour force, culminating into high burdens of dependency, and declining economies should they not import labour from heterosexual populations.
These populations will decline faster than if the natural components of growth were left unaided. This would indeed be a human disaster, and most importantly an antithesis of God’s command: Go ye and multiply.
Homosexuality is against procreation; thus, homosexuality is a looming demographic problem; it is not good for humanity as a whole.
The second argument is from a biological perspective. It is clear that the male and female organs are meant for heterosexual relationships, and they are complementary in their functions. Reproductive health has been concentrating on health problems experienced by these reproductive organs.
Yet it has been shown that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Aids”. (Landsdown, 1995)
In addition, research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that homosexuals could expect eight to 21 years lower life expectancy than other men. (Hogg, et al 1997).
It is clear God created each body part with its proper functions.
However, one wonders the extent to which the anus can effectively perform a sexual function as well as a waste matter disposal- once the elasticity so craftily embedded by God is lost; there is a serious health challenge which has to be dealt with — lack of proper control of the flaw of waste matter.
