AVERAGE USER RATING
Recently On News
Report this post
Featured Sponsors
Christian Living Resources, Bible Study Tools, Jesus Christ
Five Logical Errors of Born Gay Ideology
Andrew Tallman
"The Andrew Tallman Show," KPXQ-Phoenix
July 31, 2008
It is core doctrine of pro-gay orthodoxy that homosexuals are born gay. Though science has yet failed to affirm or deny this, the vast majority of gays and their supporters are convinced of it. Sexual orientation is seen as something discovered, not chosen. Instead of debating the merit of this assertion, let’s grant the premise that sexual orientation is determined prior to birth by genetic, gestational or other factors. The question is whether any valid conclusions flow from this. I don’t think so.
Error 1: Sexual orientation cannot change
If present at birth, sexual orientation could come from either biology or psychology. If biological, then a medical procedure may be discovered to alter it. Science gushes with the ability to change things we were born with, especially conditions which past generations considered permanent. We can treat genetic diseases, repair cleft palates, perform height-enhancing surgeries and even perform sex-change operations.
Similarly, if the issue is psychological, treatments may be possible. Many traits and behavioral patterns people believe ought or need to be changed can be adjusted by good counseling or psychopharmacology. Simple induction concludes that if medicine goes looking for a treatment for homosexuality, it might find one.
Many gays will be outraged at this line of reasoning. But why? We’ve been told that homosexuality can’t be a choice—apparently because so few would choose it. Clearly some gays would relish the power to turn their unwanted condition into an optional one. And why shouldn’t other gays be happy for those who would then be truly free to choose? After all, they’re happy for sex-change operations, which make it possible for transgender persons to undo the birth nature they think was mistakenly given them. How can gender be so fixably wrong but sexual orientation so unfixably right?
Error 2: I have no choice about how I behave
There are two kinds of inborn behavioral tendencies: the resistible and the irresistible. Unless we are supposed to believe that homosexuality is so involuntary that every gay sex act is literally a matter of biological determinism, we are left with the more plausible alternative: the desire to have gay sex does not compel anyone to actually ever have gay sex. One may not be able to control who attracts him, but he can certainly control who he has sex with. Consider the non sequitur of a gay man offering to explain last night’s particular sexual encounter by saying, “Well, I was born gay, you know.”
Free will is precisely the capacity to resist a carnal urge. If a gay person can refrain from sex even once, he has shown such free will. Thus, sexual choices devolve to him, not to his inborn disposition. Of course, straight people and gay people alike deny their sexual impulses all the time.
Error 3: If I was born gay, then acting upon it must be good
No one denies that gays have strong desires to be sexual with like-minded, like-bodied others. But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses.
Some men may be born promiscuous (and perhaps most are), but this doesn’t legitimize adultery (or polygamy, for that matter). Since morality involves precisely the question of which desires are good to act upon, gay behavior cannot be justified merely on the grounds of experienced gay desire.
Error 4: If I was born gay, then this is simply who I am
In gay doctrine, being gay isn’t seen as an important part of one’s identity. It’s seen as the definitive center of it. But why should this be so?
I am a Christian, a talk-show host, a baseball fan, right-handed, a philosopher, red-headed, from St. Louis and heterosexual. None of these is the sum or limit of my identity. However, the ones I’ve chosen or chosen to act upon define me far more than those I happened to be born with. Thus, though choosing to have gay sex is certainly a key part of one’s identity, being born with the predilection to do so is not.
Error 5: If I was born gay, God must have made me this way
Of all the untenable conclusions drawn from the born gay premise, this is the most scandalous. Whereas claiming that God has His hand in the creation of every child is uncontroversial, alleging that every element of that child’s physical, emotional and even sexual state at birth are all intended by God is quite another thing. If this pattern of inference were allowed, we would have to believe that God desires every birth defect, handicap, psychological disorder or behavioral tendency we can trace to early childhood. God may allow such things, but that is theological miles from saying that God wanted them.
Yet there is a much deeper blunder embedded in this particular claim. The idea that people have inappropriate inclinations from birth is not unique to the born-gay meme. In fact, it’s so far from unique that it’s actually a cornerstone premise of Christian theology. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants all agree about this one key concept: mankind suffers from original sin, a polluted condition that makes every one of us desire immorality from our birth.
Thus, in a very real sense, one might say that we’re all born gay, although the historically preferred terminology is that we’re all born sinners. We are surely born with corrupt desires, but that doesn’t mean God intended us to act on them.
Although I have serious doubts about the claim that sexual orientation is determined at birth, the issue is largely academic since nothing important hangs on it. Being born gay doesn’t prevent change, prohibit choice, justify behavior, form identity or implicate God. It just means that the moral challenges of the gay person are different from mine.
Andrew Tallman is the host of The Andrew Tallman Show and a columnist. Andrew’s show is heard daily on KPXQ in Phoenix. Contact him at andrewtallman@kpxq1360.com.
It is core doctrine of pro-gay orthodoxy that homosexuals are born gay. Though science has yet failed to affirm or deny this, the vast majority of gays and their supporters are convinced of it. Sexual orientation is seen as something discovered, not chosen. Instead of debating the merit of this assertion, let’s grant the premise that sexual orientation is determined prior to birth by genetic, gestational or other factors. The question is whether any valid conclusions flow from this. I don’t think so.
Error 1: Sexual orientation cannot change
If present at birth, sexual orientation could come from either biology or psychology. If biological, then a medical procedure may be discovered to alter it. Science gushes with the ability to change things we were born with, especially conditions which past generations considered permanent. We can treat genetic diseases, repair cleft palates, perform height-enhancing surgeries and even perform sex-change operations.
Similarly, if the issue is psychological, treatments may be possible. Many traits and behavioral patterns people believe ought or need to be changed can be adjusted by good counseling or psychopharmacology. Simple induction concludes that if medicine goes looking for a treatment for homosexuality, it might find one.
Many gays will be outraged at this line of reasoning. But why? We’ve been told that homosexuality can’t be a choice—apparently because so few would choose it. Clearly some gays would relish the power to turn their unwanted condition into an optional one. And why shouldn’t other gays be happy for those who would then be truly free to choose? After all, they’re happy for sex-change operations, which make it possible for transgender persons to undo the birth nature they think was mistakenly given them. How can gender be so fixably wrong but sexual orientation so unfixably right?
Error 2: I have no choice about how I behave
There are two kinds of inborn behavioral tendencies: the resistible and the irresistible. Unless we are supposed to believe that homosexuality is so involuntary that every gay sex act is literally a matter of biological determinism, we are left with the more plausible alternative: the desire to have gay sex does not compel anyone to actually ever have gay sex. One may not be able to control who attracts him, but he can certainly control who he has sex with. Consider the non sequitur of a gay man offering to explain last night’s particular sexual encounter by saying, “Well, I was born gay, you know.”
Free will is precisely the capacity to resist a carnal urge. If a gay person can refrain from sex even once, he has shown such free will. Thus, sexual choices devolve to him, not to his inborn disposition. Of course, straight people and gay people alike deny their sexual impulses all the time.
Error 3: If I was born gay, then acting upon it must be good
No one denies that gays have strong desires to be sexual with like-minded, like-bodied others. But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses.
Some men may be born promiscuous (and perhaps most are), but this doesn’t legitimize adultery (or polygamy, for that matter). Since morality involves precisely the question of which desires are good to act upon, gay behavior cannot be justified merely on the grounds of experienced gay desire.
Error 4: If I was born gay, then this is simply who I am
In gay doctrine, being gay isn’t seen as an important part of one’s identity. It’s seen as the definitive center of it. But why should this be so?
I am a Christian, a talk-show host, a baseball fan, right-handed, a philosopher, red-headed, from St. Louis and heterosexual. None of these is the sum or limit of my identity. However, the ones I’ve chosen or chosen to act upon define me far more than those I happened to be born with. Thus, though choosing to have gay sex is certainly a key part of one’s identity, being born with the predilection to do so is not.
Error 5: If I was born gay, God must have made me this way
Of all the untenable conclusions drawn from the born gay premise, this is the most scandalous. Whereas claiming that God has His hand in the creation of every child is uncontroversial, alleging that every element of that child’s physical, emotional and even sexual state at birth are all intended by God is quite another thing. If this pattern of inference were allowed, we would have to believe that God desires every birth defect, handicap, psychological disorder or behavioral tendency we can trace to early childhood. God may allow such things, but that is theological miles from saying that God wanted them.
Yet there is a much deeper blunder embedded in this particular claim. The idea that people have inappropriate inclinations from birth is not unique to the born-gay meme. In fact, it’s so far from unique that it’s actually a cornerstone premise of Christian theology. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants all agree about this one key concept: mankind suffers from original sin, a polluted condition that makes every one of us desire immorality from our birth.
Thus, in a very real sense, one might say that we’re all born gay, although the historically preferred terminology is that we’re all born sinners. We are surely born with corrupt desires, but that doesn’t mean God intended us to act on them.
Although I have serious doubts about the claim that sexual orientation is determined at birth, the issue is largely academic since nothing important hangs on it. Being born gay doesn’t prevent change, prohibit choice, justify behavior, form identity or implicate God. It just means that the moral challenges of the gay person are different from mine.
Andrew Tallman is the host of The Andrew Tallman Show and a columnist. Andrew’s show is heard daily on KPXQ in Phoenix. Contact him at andrewtallman@kpxq1360.com.
Most Recent User Comments
philwynk
1/5/2010 12:03 PM
b) Legends: "In Ezekiel 16: Sodom's sins were 'arrogance' and 'unconcern.'"
Rebuttal: This commits an elementary hermeneutical error, that of taking a single passage to constitute the full theology of an issue. The correct theology on any issue is the sum of what all passages say about it. The events of Genesis 19 require that we add to Sodom's list of sins sexual depravity (both hetero and homo,) gang violence and rape, murder, inhospitality, and a scornful and dismissive attitude toward righteousness. Gay sex is not the only sin or even the greatest among those, but it is clearly present, and clearly an element in the censure of Sodom.
c) Legends: "We are born with a sin nature. That can include homosexuality."
Rebuttal: Yes; and Jesus came to free us from sin, including homosexuality. If homosexuality is part of our sin nature, that constitutes prima facie evidence that it both can be and should be overcome in Christ.
Rebuttal: This commits an elementary hermeneutical error, that of taking a single passage to constitute the full theology of an issue. The correct theology on any issue is the sum of what all passages say about it. The events of Genesis 19 require that we add to Sodom's list of sins sexual depravity (both hetero and homo,) gang violence and rape, murder, inhospitality, and a scornful and dismissive attitude toward righteousness. Gay sex is not the only sin or even the greatest among those, but it is clearly present, and clearly an element in the censure of Sodom.
c) Legends: "We are born with a sin nature. That can include homosexuality."
Rebuttal: Yes; and Jesus came to free us from sin, including homosexuality. If homosexuality is part of our sin nature, that constitutes prima facie evidence that it both can be and should be overcome in Christ.
philwynk
1/5/2010 12:01 PM
It's years later, but the words of LegendsofBatman are so corrosive and erroneous that they need rebuttal. So, from 2010, here it is:
First, notice that Legends does not even attempt to address the logic of Tallman's article. Since he cannot refute it, he ignores it. In argument, this is to be taken as an admission that the argument is true. Legends loses the debate by default, before he even begins.
But are his arguments meaningful? Not even one of them is.
1) Biblical "support" that people are born gay.
a) Legends: "In Acts 17, Paul does not mention homosexuality among their sins."
Rebuttal: This is an argument from silence, a common rhetorical fallacy. Paul does not mention any specific sins at all; it was not his topic. Nor is it plain that any of his audience were openly gay. What we can infer from the absence of comment about homosexuality is... nothing.
First, notice that Legends does not even attempt to address the logic of Tallman's article. Since he cannot refute it, he ignores it. In argument, this is to be taken as an admission that the argument is true. Legends loses the debate by default, before he even begins.
But are his arguments meaningful? Not even one of them is.
1) Biblical "support" that people are born gay.
a) Legends: "In Acts 17, Paul does not mention homosexuality among their sins."
Rebuttal: This is an argument from silence, a common rhetorical fallacy. Paul does not mention any specific sins at all; it was not his topic. Nor is it plain that any of his audience were openly gay. What we can infer from the absence of comment about homosexuality is... nothing.
- Read more feedback
- Give us your feedback on this article - (login required to comment)
Legends: "We don't choose to be straight, therefore they don't choose to be gay."
Rebuttal: This is a straw man fallacy; it is relevant only if the argument against homosexuality is that it is chosen. Tallman's entire argument begins by granting as a hypothetical that homosexuality is present from birth, and not chosen.
3) Scientific "support" that people are born gay
Legends: "There is indeed evidence that supports the idea of a "gay" gene."
Rebuttal: Legends is very badly misinformed. It is not generally agreed what causes homosexuality, but the APA has utterly abandoned any pretense that evidence suggests a genetic cause. In actual fact, it is known with 100% certainty that genes do not cause homosexuality. Genes might play a supporting role (as height, a genetic characteristic, plays in basketball ability,) but they do not cause homosexuality. See http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=4555 as a starting point on this issue.