LGBT advocates fail to recognize, let alone simply acknowledge, the profound disconnect that exists between the reality of biological nature and the homosexual/transgender lifestyles they promote.
During the social media firestorm over the suicide of Josh Alcorn, who claimed his Fundamentalist Christian parents forbade him from embracing his transgenderism, I got into an exchange with a transgender advocate on twitter — where all serious public debate takes place these days.
Our exchange stretched over the day, but here is the core ideas I brought up with my opponent.
Notice that my tweeter antagonist never interacted with the point of my argument. The person initially linked two or three online articles in which “experts” allegedly “proved” transgenderism is a biological, natural occurring orientation in some folks. Hence concluding we must accept and celebrate who the person claims he or she is. So if a man says he’s a women, feels like a woman, wants to dress like a woman, no one is to say otherwise. To question the person’s sanity would be cruel, hateful, and harming of the person.
I simply pointed out that similar “experts” have claimed pedophilia is also a biological, natural occurring orientation in some folks. I even linked an article. Rather than dealing with my point, the reaction was to deflect, claiming it is a “red herring,” and that pedophilia harms others and is illegal.
But we are not talking about the legality of pedophilia. It may very well be illegal, and it certainly is harmful. However, those who claim to have a pedophilic orientation are still “feeling” that way. It is part of who they say they are whether it is illegal for them to act upon their orientation or not.
It is here that I see a major inconsistency in the thinking of LGBT advocates. I guess that is to be expected in our postmodern, glandolatrous society.
Seizing upon that comment, I pointed out that probably every one of them believed in Darwinian evolution as the infallible, scientific paradigm. I mean, one just HAS to be an evolutionist to be a gay-loving progressive, right? Who wants to be perceived as a stupid creationist? That’s like what Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann believes.
Darwinian evolution is the default “scientific” mechanism to explain why life does what it does to adapt and survive. So where exactly does LGBT orientation fit in? The conundrum becomes even more ensnaring when we consider that homosexual orientation is a same-sex attraction and behavior; yet one cannot reproduce with the same-sex.
So what biological advantage does homosexual orientation confer? Even more to the point: if organisms are merely gene transferring machines as evolutionary dogma insists they are, how did homosexual orientation even come about to begin with? The genes have to be passed along from some previous, homosexual oriented organism, but again, organisms can’t reproduce with the same-sex. This is an especially difficult problem if one is going to argue homosexual orientation is genetic rather than nurture or a choice.
The push back was what I expected: emotional froth.
The first person said I was a hater burning a strawman. Okay, I guess. Heaven forbid I ask for some consistency among free-thinking, intellectual progressives who pride themselves with NOT being narrow-minded, gay-bashing conservatives and big believers in reason and logic.
Another person wrote that monogamy doesn’t confer an evolutionary advantage either, so put that in your pipe and smoke it you ignorant bigot. I then pointed out that whether a couple is monogamous or polygamous is irrelevant. In a viable, evolutionary worldview, only heterosexuals can reproduce sexually, either with one or multiple partners.
Still another commenter responded to my objection by pointing out how there are many heterosexuals both male and female who can’t reproduce, you homophobic jerk. I acknowledged that was true, but again, it is also irrelevant. According to an evolutionary worldview, those reproductively impotent couples wouldn’t survive either, but the ability to reproduces really has nothing to do with the point: Only heterosexuals can reproduce and pass their genes along to the next generation.
A fourth person chimed in with some homophobia stomping anecdotal stories from around the world. He wrote,
Zoos in Japan and Germany have documented homosexual male penguin couples. They built nests together and used a stone as a substitute for an egg. (Happy Feet!) Both male and female pigeons sometimes exhibit homosexual behavior. Same-sex pigeon pairs will build nests, and lesbian hens will lay (infertile) eggs and attempt to incubate them. Courtship, mounting, and full (*I can’t type it-I’m blushing*) between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. Yup- good old mid-western American Bison. And I can’t even post what those naughty Amazon Dolphins do.
A zoo is not the brutal, harsh real world of BBC Planet Earth. Homosexual male penguin couples would die in one generation without reproducing. So too with the lesbian pigeons. It’s called natural selection in the evolutionary construct, and it weeds out the weakest members of the group so the overall group can survive.
Additionally, bison bulls and dolphins that supposedly display homosexual behavior typically reproduce with females to pass along their offspring. They are not exclusively homosexual, as it were. And if we are going to look to the animal world to justify our behavior, chimps will kill and eat their own babies and male whales of all breeds gang rape females. At this point, I don’t see Washington repealing rape policy anytime soon.
Pro-homosexual defenders are stuck with what could be called a Dawkins’ Dilemma. It doesn’t matter if it is people or animals. How did homosexual behavior arise naturally without the ability of homosexuals to reproduce? If we apply evolutionary dogma, homosexuals are mutations; rejects that should be selected against because of their inability to continue the survival of the group population.
So in the overall debate with gay issues, if progressives on twitter are to be true to their core, intellectual and scientific values, they unwittingly encourage the idea that gays are natural mutations, which make them worst bigots towards homosexuals than religious conservatives ever will be. At least I believe homosexuals can be redeemed and freed from their sinful orientation.