By
Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, June
22, 2017
Untangling LGBTQ arguments
Popular
arguments in defence of LGBTQ matters often consist of knots of illogic that
should be untangled. Consider the following.
1.
Critics of LGBTQ matters are homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, etc., so their
arguments should be dismissed.
Reply:
This is an ad
hominem fallacy, i.e., the
mistake of dismissing arguments on the basis of some (alleged) characteristic
of the arguer. The merits or demerits of the critics' arguments should be
addressed, not the characteristics of those setting out the arguments. The
messenger isn't the message.
2.
Being gay is like race, so questioning homosexuality is unjust—as racism is
unjust.
Reply:
This commits the fallacy of faulty analogy, i.e., the mistake of basing an
inference on a comparison when there are relevant dissimilarities.
First,
unlike race, "being gay" is not 100% biologically determined. Though sexual
desires are not chosen, various factors are involved: some biological, some
psychological, some social. Even though one can have same-sex etc. attractions
(for various causal reasons), one needn't construct or centre one's identity on
those attractions. We are more than sexual impulses—much more.
Second,
unlike race, people can change or at least not act in accordance with their
sexual impulses. See LivingOut.org,
Restored
Hope Network, Sy
Rogers, etc.
Third,
unlike race, significant health issues are associated with gay sexual
behaviour.
Physician
Miriam
Grossman: Compared to the general heterosexual population, persons who
identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual report “more high risk sexual behaviors,
higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental
health problems [anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts].”
Significantly,
Grossman adds, these disparities also occur in more accepting, gay-friendly
societies (e.g., The Netherlands), so can't be blamed wholly on cultural
attitudes.
For
further substantiation, see the 2017 book The
Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research
Reveals.
[See,
too, my column Is
being gay like race?]
3.
LGBTQ people are born that way, so that justifies LGBTQ sexual behaviour.
Reply:
Aside from the small percentage of intersex people, the premise is false (see above:
it's not 100% biologically determined).
Moreover,
even if one is "born that way," the argument commits the Is-Ought
fallacy, i.e., the mistake of moving from a descriptive statement (of what is)
to a prescriptive statement (of what ought). Just because I have a propensity
to do X, it doesn't follow logically that I should do X.
A
propensity for anger doesn't justify having a temper tantrum. A propensity for alcoholism
doesn't justify drinking to excess. A propensity for pedophilia doesn't justify
sex with children. So too a propensity for same-sex (etc.) sex doesn't
automatically justify acting on that propensity. More reasoning is needed.
[See
my column Lady
Gaga and moral reasoning.]
4.
If you disagree with persons who identify as LGBTQ, then you are a hater. Either
you affirm LGBTQ or you show disrespect.
Reply:
This incurs the false
dichotomy fallacy.
This
is a mistake in reasoning which occurs when we assume that there are only two
options, when there are actually three (or more), yet we go on to assume that
one of the two options must be the way to go.
Missing
third option: be genuinely hospitable and respectful to those who identify as
LGBTQ (etc.) AND hold to the wisdom of reserving sex between one man and one
woman in permanent monogamous marriage.
5.
Reserving sex between one man and one woman in permanent monogamous marriage is
silly.
Reply:
This is false.
According
to researcher RyanT. Anderson, reliable studies from social sciences strongly
suggest parenting by married biological parents—i.e., biological mother and
biological father—is ideal for well-being of children. Redefinition of marriage
(along with divorce and single parenting) takes society another step away from
this ideal.
Also,
stepping away from sexual complementarity increases demand for reproductive
technology.
In
Vitro Fertilization may become normalized and its problems exacerbated. IVF
creates leftover frozen human embryos, i.e., human beings; often requires
“selective termination,” i.e., abortion of unwanted implantations/ fetuses;
exploits women as surrogates and egg suppliers; plus threatens to turn children
into commodities, abolishing their biologically-based moral right to know and
be raised by both biological parents.
Further
reading: Ryan T. Anderson, Truth
Overruled.
[See too: Ryan T. Anderson lecture at Princeton University: What Is Marriage?(56 minute online video); Q&A (36 minute online video).]
[See too: Ryan T. Anderson lecture at Princeton University: What Is Marriage?(56 minute online video); Q&A (36 minute online video).]
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate
professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed
in this column are not necessarily the views of Providence.)
Other Apologia columns on related matters, for additional
reading:
Phobia
Love
Transgender
Homosexuality (general)
Homosexuality (non-religious criticisms)
- Lady Gaga and moral reasoning
- Is being gay like race?
- Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance?
- It's all society's fault?
- Born gay?
- Think for baby's sake
- Careful thinking
- Reductio ad absurdum
- Is promoting same-sex sex wise?
Homosexuality (and
Bible)
- Jesus and homosexuality
- Homosexuality and history
- Evangelical Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?
- Debunking Internet Arguments: Bible and Homosexuality
- For the Bible tells me so – Critical Review
- Evangelical Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?
Same-sex marriage
Politics
- Cakes and conscience
- Pride Parade pros and cons
- Politically Incorrect Thoughts: Orlando massacre, HSD and LGBTQ
- Thoughtcrimes
- Men in women's bathrooms?
- Bill C16 is incoherent—and that's a concern
- C16 and Forcing Your Religion
- Bill 18 needs revision
Replies to my
critics
- Questioning a critic's credibility
- A critical review of a critic's work
- A critical response to another critic
Note to critics: Please read at least a few of my (relevant) suggested readings before commenting. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment