The Equality Fallacy Part IV: The Contradictory "Logic" of the Liberal Left

We have all heard the popular adage "You can't have your cake and eat it too." This is really nothing more than a simplified version of a traditional philosophical dogma called the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction, or LNC, states that it is impossible for two mutually exclusive ideas to both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Aquinas references this in his first proof of the existence of God, reminding us that we cannot simultaneously be both in a state of potentiality and a state of actuality at the same time in the same respect. In other words, you can't be in motion while you are standing still. You can't devour your cake and simultaneously have it still sitting untouched on your plate. The fact that the cake analogy has become proverbial demonstrates to us that the Law of Non-Contradiction is not only for philosophers, but that it is commonsense, something obvious to the profanum vulgus, the common crowd to which most of us belong. Yet, as G. K. Chesterton often noted, commonsense is not so common anymore, and I notice that many of the influential, educated, and world changers of our times are remarkably inept at logic, and remarkably adept at holding mutually contradictory ideas at the same time. Now, in spite of the title of this post, I am not prejudiced enough to assume that only the liberal left is guilty of such mental gymnastics (though they are often quite talented at them), but within the context of this series of posts on homosexuality and gay marriage, it is the liberal left that will be the focus of this critique.

The right wing, the conservatives, and the Christians of our country (who, for some odd reason, have all been rather ignominiously lumped together as though they were but one creature) are far from being above the pitfalls of logic. However, in the case of sexuality, there is at least a certain consistency to the conservative arguments, which is lacking in the liberal arguments. The Christian sees sexuality on three levels, each level related to the other, but with a certain order of importance, with each level subjugated to next higher. The act of subjugation involves control, but not contradiction. The three levels, or tiers, are: the natural (or biological), the human, and the Divine.

On the natural, or biological level, we deal  with impulse and instinct. We may recognize two principal aspects to sexuality at the natural level. The first is the unchecked hormonal attraction between the sexes, and the second is  the biological aspect of reproduction and the survival and propagation of the species. Here there is no reason or judgment, no morals or social codes. Here nature runs its course.

On the second level, the human, we see the basic principles of the natural accepted (e.g., the goodness, pleasurableness, and importance of sex), but subjugated to the higher reason and emotions of man. Love plays a greater role here, often restraining the impulses of nature, and promoting fidelity and chastity. The free will and higher reason of the human person burdens us with the complexities of choice, judgment, responsibility, and morals. No longer may we act purely upon passion and instinct.

At the third level, the Christian sees sex in its truest aspect, in the light of the Divine Image. Again, the basic principles of sex are not changed, but they are  further restrained and subjugated as man is raised above his animal and human natures. Sex is still seen as good, pleasurable, and important to the survival of the species, yet here its moral framework is even more refined and clarified (e.g. "But I say to you, whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart"), and sex may be entirely forgone for some higher cause, as we see celibacy, "...those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God." Throughout these three levels we may see change, but also consistency. We see a steady improvement from mere bestial nature to Spirit-guided humanity, but we never see an actual contradiction. The lower laws of sex may be superimposed upon by higher laws, but even at the Divine level sex does not suddenly become evil, nor are we told, for example, to begin having sex with animals or making love to trees. Consistency, yes; contradiction, no. I fear, however, that I cannot say the same for the sexual arguments of the liberal left.

The left, in this matter, has in general little interest in the Divine level, except when it suits their purposes. We may occasionally be reminded, for example that Jesus said some very sweet things, such as "Love one another", and "Do not judge", which are infallibly interpreted by the left to mean that real Christians should support the legalization of gay marriage and be supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. Forgive me, but I cannot help but feel a certain level of annoyance when those who do not even believe in our  Savior stop to tell us precisely what our Savior meant.

For our present purpose, therefore, we will consider the contradictions and inconsistencies within the pro-homosexual arguments, commonly presented by the liberal left, only within the context of the natural level, leaving the human level for examination in a future post on marriage.

On the natural level, the modern liberal viewpoint of sex applies to far more than merely homosexuality. The "natural" side of sexuality is greatly promoted in modern culture. The idea of uninhibitedly pursuing one's passions is not new in the post-Christian West, but not until Sigmund Freud and other psychologists was such behavior cloaked in scientific respectability.  Not only did Freudian psychoanalysis excuse many moral faults, but it succeeded in creating the illusion that many traditional moral laws and cultural taboos were actually harmful to the psyche. All of us today feel the weight of Freud's success' whether Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, most of us are familiar with idea (whether or not we accept it) that inhibitions and repressions are dangerous, and liable to imbalance the mind. One must not repress, one must express-- that is the idea. We have only to look a little further up the road to Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the infamous sexologist, to see to what perversions such uninhibited and amoral thinking leads. Kinsey's work is nearly devoid of moral proscriptions, focusing purely on sexual behavior (even in children), and successfully indoctrinating a future generation with a severely skewed understanding of human sexuality. It is not my purpose here to critique Kinsey, his own writings and methods of research stand in judgment on his thought. But the scientific and pseudo-scientific work of men such as Freud, Kinsey, and others has clearly left us with a dangerously uninhibited view of sex.

Summing up, we are taught that sex is natural, normal and beautiful (as, indeed, it is), but also that inhibitions and repressions are wrong. To such a mindset Christian "prudery" is a psychological fault. Traditional morals and taboos are unhealthy. We are told (in the face of evidence to the contrary) that masturbation and pornography are natural and healthy. It is dangerous to repress our animal instincts (or might I say, in some cases, the nature of the beast?). Embarrassment, modesty, and blushing, are all traits of a less-evolved human. The message is clear and appealing: Be a sexually natural, healthy, and uninhibited person.

Returning for a moment to our central issue of homosexuality, we will find that the principal arguments for it are both rooted in the "natural". We are told, without much explanation, that homosexuality is "normal", a perfectly natural option for persons so disposed. Secondly, we are told that certain persons are born that way, so it would be a mark of bigotry to refer to their sexual preferences as "unnatural". Whatever we may call it, homosexuality is certainly no longer viewed as abnormal, as a result of environment, or as a psychological ailment. The very expression "sexual orientation" (as  opposed to "sexual preference" or "sexual choice"), indicates to us that homosexuality is intrinsic to certain persons, that it is part of their very nature. And Freud would remind us that to inhibit our natural desires is dangerous. The Christian, therefore, is now hated not only as a moral witness, but as the "inhibitor", inflicting grave damage upon the souls to whom he preaches and which he seeks to assist.

Very well. But what of the actual arguments put forward by the pro-gay community? Is there any consistency or cogency to them? Let us see.

First of all, the argument of genetic predisposition. We have become accustomed to the argument that homosexuality is of genetic origin, that homosexuals are "born that way", that "God made them that way", that they have no choice in the matter; therefore we have no right to declare what is "natural" in them as unnatural, or wrong.

To begin with, I find it ironic that a culture so skeptical, so devoted to scientific proof and empirical evidence (particularly as regards matters of  religion) has so readily accepted the idea that homosexuality is genetic, in spite of the fact that genetic predisposition has yet to be conclusively established. It is of course possible, and in the future it may be established, but it speaks volumes on the topic of propaganda and media influence that countless thousands believe it to be established already, when it is not. The question of the studies and their results in this matter would make for fascinating reading, but they deserve a chapter of their own.

For the moment, my concern is to determine whether the argument is valid and consistent even if the major premise were proved. Clearly the argument assumes the minor premise that whatever is natural to an individual is therefore morally acceptable. And it is here that the appalling breach of logic is unveiled. Why would we assume that a genetic predisposition is synonymous with what is good and normal? After all, have not scientists and psychologists long taught us that alcoholism, schizophrenia, and other mental and physical ailments are often genetic in nature as well? They may be part of the suffering individual's nature, but surely we do not on that ground deem them good! Nor do we need to stop with these comparisons, but let us turn to specifically sexual issues. I find it strange that so much emphasis is put upon demonstrating that homosexuality is normal purely because the homosexual "was born that way", but where are voices seeking to demonstrate the same thing concerning pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality? Surely, these behaviors are just as likely to be genetic in nature as homosexuality, but even if they were so proved to be, would we then condone them as normal and healthy? On the contrary, all of these issues are treated as illnesses needing help and understanding, but not as morally acceptable lifestyles, or alternative sexual orientations.

Consistency, please. If you will attempt to prove that homosexuality is natural simply because it is the result of a genetic predisposition, then you must also be prepared to defend pedophilia and other sexual behaviors on the same grounds. And even in our present society, I am still convinced that you would be hard-pressed to garner much support for such a position.

But, it will surely be argued, homosexuality is commonly witnessed among many species of animals. What could be more "natural" than the testimony of nature itself? Here again, the subject of homosexual behavior in animals deserves its own separate treatment. Issues such as domestication, homosexual versus bisexual behavior, mutation, and hormonal balances make this a very complex topic indeed. Nonetheless, the frequent homosexual behavior witnessed even in wild animals is an undisputed fact. My concern is not so much with whether certain animals exhibit gay tendencies, but with whether I should take my moral code from fruit flies and penguins. We are men after all, not animals. The question is whether we will seek to rise above the level of the beasts, or whether, with our greater intelligence and responsibility, we will sink far below it.

Yet on this topic as well we must seek for consistency. Once again I note with some irony that the liberal is deeply concerned with demonstrating the naturalness of homosexuality from the behavior of animals, but fails to apply the same argument to certain other rather inconvenient domestic traits of the animal kingdom. After all, philandering is far more common among animals than homosexuality. Perhaps we can excuse infidelity as natural, since monogamy seems be merely one of several options in nature. Or perhaps we can take our lesson from the Black Widow Spider, and defend the husband-killer in court as merely acting in accordance with nature. Or again, what of those mothers in the animal realm who devour their young? My point is simple: the human species must not blindly take its morals from the observation of animal traits and tendencies. And we are just inconsistent enough to refuse to do so in countless other areas besides homosexuality. After all, it is not uncommon to see a dog humping a man's leg, but most of us would still consider it more than a little disturbing if we were to see a man humping a dog's leg.

In conclusion, if we seek to demonstrate the moral acceptability of homosexuality from the evidence of genetics and animal behavior, we must be prepared to accept a host of dreadful sexual and domestic aberrations by the same logic.

Consistency, please.

No, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.