Avi Sion's problem with bonono monkeys

“Frankly, the subject of homosexuality is very distasteful to me. I would prefer to ignore it altogether, so as not to be mentally tainted by it.” So begins Avi Sion's booklet “No to Sodom”, and it's pretty much downhill from there.

When we finished reading it, we had “learned” that homosexuals, bisexuals and (perhaps) transsexuals are unnatural, rude, vulgar, perverse, very immature, suicidal, essentially sado-masochistic, willful, insolent, shameless, impudent and immodest. They are (supposedly) failed heterosexuals, lack intelligence, are sorry losers in the mating game, are no longer quite human, have indelibly sullied their souls, are beyond redemption, spread AIDS to heterosexuals, are similar to pedophiles and zoophiles, and disrespect the victims of the Holocaust (the author is Jewish). Yet, the author tells us that he is opposed to “verbal abuse”! If the above *isn't* verbal abuse, how on earth does it look like?! Sometimes, Sion is unintentionally funny, as when he calls bonobos “bonono monkeys” or claims that ancient Rome was destroyed by rampant homosexuality. He seems oblivious to the fact that the Western Roman Empire was Christian when it fell...

The most extreme section of Sion's pamphlet is an addendum, in which the author demands the immediate expulsion of all homosexuals and their supporters (sic) from the Jewish religion. He calls them “evil”, claim that they are responsible for “crimes against humanity”, and call the removal of “this monster” an act of “social hygiene”. Homosexuals “infect” the Jewish people, and have to be “culled like sick sheep from the flock”. This is the “prophylactic way, used in gardening, husbandry and medicine”. It is also similar to the terminology used by the Nazis against the Jews, or by supporters of eugenics against “inferior” humans in general. It's astonishing that Sion in his intolerance doesn't see this, or perhaps doesn't care…

The more concrete arguments mobilized by Sion against homosexuality are also unconvincing and often strike me as contradictory. He claims that homosexuality is a “free choice”, yet simultaneously claims that people can become homosexual due to manipulation or rape (suggesting that it isn't based on choice), and that homosexuals are mostly beyond redemption (also suggesting that it isn't a free choice). Sion claims that homosexuality is unnatural since it's not geared towards procreation. However, homosexual behavior exists among many animals (including the “bonono monkeys”). Sion then points out that humans, of course, aren't animals – but if so, the biologistic argument about sex being solely for reproduction becomes moot. If humans aren't animals, why should we act as animals when we have sex?

Sion condemns all forms of non-reproductive sex as hedonistic, suggesting that his opposition to homosexuality is rooted in a general anti-sex attitude. However, he then contradicts himself when suggesting that heterosexual couples *do* have the right to keep the government out of their bedrooms, while homosexuals do not. This is clearly a double standard: presumably, a heterosexual couple can engage in anal sex, while a homosexual couple can't! Nor does the author condemn the eating of sweets, the drinking of wine of good vintage, or the admiration of scenic nature, none of which has a strictly biological function and all of which seems “hedonistic”. Yet, he *does* condemn the terrible hedonism of homosexuality…

Sion says that the highest goals of human life are spiritual, and in this he is surely right. Yet, he is oblivious to the role of sex, or at least sexually-derived symbolism, in much human spirituality, including mysticism. What about the Song of Songs? While the symbolism in Canticles is heterosexual, the symbolism in other mystical traditions strikes me as homosexual, including certain forms of Sufi Islam (it's probably derived from Plato's Symposium). Yet, Sion suggests that all religious traditions are "straight" and, presumably, anti-sex!

However, when push comes to shove, I don't think the philosophical arguments in “No to Sodom” are the most decisive ones. I think Sion is opposed to homosexuality (and the actual gays and lesbians) because he sees it as a kind of plague which began only recently and threatens to overrun and “infect” Jewish and American society. He further believes that all homosexuals are psychologically disturbed, and hence simply cannot be “normal” in any sense whatsoever. These claims are presumably open to empirical testing, and should therefore be possible to refute. What cannot be so easily refuted is the strong “yuck factor” involved in the author's negative personal feelings towards homosexuality (or perhaps sex in general). Sion may be an interesting philosopher (he has written small books on Kant, Hume and Aristotle), but in this particular text, he comes across as an irrational homophobe…

This is Avi Sion's problem with bonono monkeys.