The problems of the homosexuality argument begin with the
whole idea of “normal.” Every effort is
being made to “educate” people (children and adults alike) that homosexuality
is normal. We need not be against it
because it is apparently normal behavior and we should embrace it.
Define “normal”
The main problem with this is the definition of normal. Do we mean natural? As in, it occurs naturally. Maybe genetics determines your sexuality
before you’re born. Do we mean typical
behavior? So, people should “normally” want to have relations with the same
sex. Do we mean it isn’t any different
than any other behavior? Answering each
question leads to a further stripping of the homosexual argument, ultimately
leaving it as irrational, incompetent, and utterly defenseless, like every
other liberal argument.
“. . . born this
way.”
A huge push some years ago was to say, “We’re born this
way. Do you think we would choose this
if we had a choice?” The effort was to
make homosexuality the byproduct of a cruel mother nature cursing the
individual to a life they didn’t want to embrace or forcing the religious to
accept that their God made the person gay.
However, as homosexuals trumpeted this cause treatment centers sprang up
trying to help people leave behind the homosexual lifestyle. Their argument was being used against them,
showing that if indeed they could choose differently, treatment would be given
to help them make that choice.
This seems natural, because if it is a byproduct of
genetics, then why should we not treat it like we do other genetic
disorders. People that are alcoholics
are said to have a genetic disposition that responds differently to alcohol
than others. We offer numerous
treatments for them to help them break out from a self-injurious lifestyle. “AH!” the liberal shouts, “See they injure
themselves and others! That is different
than homosexuality!” Though I could
argue that homosexuality does indeed cause injury, I find that we can easily
accept the liberal premise and still destroy their argument.
The easiest way to expose this fraudulent argument is to
simply ask a moral question, “If we could determine that there is indeed
genetic triggers behave differently and result in homosexual tendency
(accepting the argument that they are “born
that way”), what if we could isolate that cause and eliminate it – never
again having another homosexual walk the earth?” So we accept their premise that there is
nothing wrong with it, we accept the premise that they’re born that way, and
now we say what if it was completely preventable, “Should we prevent it?” The issue arises for the liberal because the
trumpeting of homosexuality is actually just the liberal looking for a pass for
ANY sexual behavior. If they say we
should prevent it, then they admit that it indeed IS NOT normal. In fact, by saying we she prevent it then we
further strengthen support for offering treatment to those who are currently
living the homosexual lifestyle. Either
it is some type of abnormality (NOT “normal) and therefore, given the power to
prevent it, we should prevent it or it is normal and they cannot justify why is
should be prevented.
Now, if they say it should not be prevented, then the
liberal has revealed that they aren’t interested in the freedom of the homosexual
(as a person) but rather interested in everybody accepting the liberal’s sexual
pursuits. An atheist must think about
what is better for humanity.
Intentionally allowing a genetic disorder to continue on when given the
power to prevent it is sabotaging the evolution of humanity. Normally, weaker genetic mutations would be
naturally eliminated by nature by simply allowing the stronger to overwhelm the
weaker. Within human evolution, if human
life has some sort of natural value, different than other animals (NOT
an atheist belief) then the “weaker” still have a place and have
value. However, without some intrinsic
value within humanity itself, then that which could be shown as a weaker
development, abnormality that if it became dominant among the species would
lead to our demise (like homosexuality), then we should seek to eliminate
that. So the liberal who does NOT want
us to prevent homosexuality (if we had
the power) is openly rejecting their
only priority as an atheist – to help advance and strengthen the
species. Their aren’t really a lot of
excuses the liberal can offer for this position, so even though they could
create some generic excuse, establish a baseless pseudo morality, or just admit
that they are really only interested in justifying all sexual behavior.
Basic biology - we have males and females, and together they
can reproduce (we’re talking humans here).
This is how genetically speaking our species is able to survive. Healthy, genetically normal females can
reproduce with healthy, genetically normal males. If we accept evolution and atheism, then we
must know that the advancement of the species is the only value a person can
add to humanity. Genetic abnormalities
that prevent advancement should be eliminated.
Atheism has no place for a barren woman, a crippled, or the elderly that
are too frail to take care of themselves.
The only way these people survive in atheism is if the atheist declares
that there is a moral law that compels people to help these people. The problem is they have no basis for this
moral law. They would like to
present a pseudo moral code, but if a
person completely obliterates their fake moral law in attempt to advance the species
further, that person is a better atheist, and in these terms, a better
person. Now, when the homosexual enters
this picture the pseudo moral group tries to defend the homosexual and wants
others to embrace their lifestyle.
However, the better human (in evolutionist and atheist terms) would be
the one who destroys the homosexual. The
homosexual is a person that voluntarily
is the equivalent of the barren woman or the sterile man. “Voluntarily?”
the liberal asks. Yes! Because even if
they desire a person of the same sex, it is their BIOLOGICAL (evolutionary
duty!) to try and reproduce to propagate the species and by rejecting that role
(even if they don’t desire it) they
reject the only reason they exist biologically and therefore are useless in
the advancement of the species. “Well,
what if they are a doctor or scientist?” Well, they cumulatively add less than
a person that does the same job, on the same level, but is also capable of
reproducing and actively pursues their biological duty. Maybe the homosexual that participates in
their biological duty to reproduce while still engaging in homosexuality would
be granted a place in this world, but that is NOT what they are seeking. The liberals want us to call it normal and
even say we’re all equals. But where
does the liberal have any ability to back up that desire? Pseudo morality has no basis and offers
little in terms of accomplishing the evolutionary goal of advancement and they
have no biological role given the basic biological reason for a human being is
to reproduce.
So, when they make the claim to be born homosexual,
logically that should be MORE damaging to the advancement of gay rights. They’ve just staked claim to be genetically
abnormal, biologically deviant, and evolutionarily weak. To be genetically made to have a
predisposition toward homosexual behavior is to admit the need for treatment
and to admit that homosexuality is NOT normal.
Normal sexual
behavior
Perhaps the homosexual simply understands that the sexual
behavior itself is normal and should not be looked down upon. So typical human sex would somehow include a
tendency to have sexual relations with somebody of the same gender (I use
gender here to specifically spit in the face of the sociologists that try to
define gender as whatever we think we are – crazy liberal sociologists, abandon
reason and science to pursue a specific agenda). Obviously it doesn’t take much more than
common sense to say it’s obvious that biologically that is not how humans were
designed.
Now here the liberal pipes up with something about hormones,
studies that show a small majority of people have thought about or experimented
with same sex relationships on some level.
This seems to be a biological justification, along with a somewhat
psychological attribution to social norm, that it is the natural design of
things.
On the biological side, we can simply show how hormones are
meant to function to produce a sexual desire that results in reproduction. The hormones are NOT somehow trying to force
a person toward the same sex, but rather toward sex – real sex where reproduction
can actually occur. If a person’s
hormones are helping spur a desire for the same sex, that would be biology
failing and some type of abnormality. To
biologically be drawn toward the same sex is to say that the human species is
biologically designed to commit suicide.
Leave exactly three billion people on this planet, all of the same sex,
whether male or female, and come back in one hundred fifty years and you will
have exactly three billion dead. Not one
would have survived; none one would have reproduced; complete biological
suicide –a real problem and evolution is a complete farce if that is how
humanity is designed.
So if hormones are the culprit, they are so as an
abnormality to basic biological function and design. Therefore a homosexual can’t claim their
sexual behavior to be normal. Now the
liberal must cling to the second point that studies show a majority of people
have had thoughts of relations with the same sex or have experimented with a
same sex relationship of some type.
The problem here is that they must somehow draw a
correlation between thought and normal behavior. First they are defining normal thought based
on a simple majority, which is logically fallacious (argumentum ad populum).
Second, there must be some objective method to define which thoughts are
normal or which links between thought and behavior should be considered normal.
For example, many people think about killing somebody (I
don’t have a specific number and I don’t need one for the point to be true) and
yet people don’t accept killing other people as perfectly normal. In fact it is considered deviant
behavior. Just because people experience
thoughts one cannot rationally define normal behavior as people who act on
those thoughts. If indeed it is
completely normal, the great murderers in history should never be thought of as
unique or different because they are simply behaving normally.
This brings up an interesting point, homosexuality is
strange, NOT because of religion, but because of biological design. Years ago people called homosexuals “queers”
which is perhaps the most fitting description.
Not as an insult, but as a look at the strange and abnormal nature of
the behavior. People all over the globe
have given daughters with dowries, but I don’t know any place where they
offered their son with a dowry to another man’s son. What would be gained? It isn’t religious to want to have children
to support you as you get older and to take care of you, it is biology at
work. Reproduction provides a means of
survival for a society and any society that doesn’t reproduce dies. No need for studies or surveys to discover
that which we know – it takes two distinct sexual organs, working properly, in
order to be able to reproduce (again, speaking about humans).
Reproduction is what the hormones drive. Sex, in the very real sense (meaning two
people of the same sex can’t actually engage in sex, but only imitate it), is
what we were designed for. When we
deviate from this we are acting contrary to what nature intends and therefore
we are the ones that are abnormal. No
matter which way somebody tries to classify sexual relationships between two
people of the same sex, everybody intrinsically knows how we are supposed to behave. It takes reprogramming people and constant
excuses to try and justify anything different than what we biologically know to
be true – a man and a woman are meant to be together, any other combination is
unnatural. Defining same sex
relationships as normal is nothing but a denial of the same science,
naturalism, and evolution that the atheist uses to justify sexual freedom.
