IFI’s Laurie Higgins explains the fundamentals of the homosexual issue (Part 1)

Print Friendly and PDF

If you haven’t read the work of Laurie Higgins on the true nature of homosexuality and the homosexual agenda, you need to soon – and as often as possible. While there are many good teachers on the subject across the country, Laurie’s writings are particularly hard-hitting and insightful.

Laurie is the director of the Illinois Family Institute’s Division of School Advocacy, and in that role she has excelled at exposing the sick presence of the radical left’s social agenda in the public schools. Here are a couple of examples plus three more worth reading:

The “Vagina Dance” Taught in a Crystal Lake High School

Eric Zorn & Homosexuality-Affirming “Ally Week” at St. Charles North High School

Whole: A New Documentary on a Troubling Disorder

Chicago Tribune’s Propagandist for Homosexuality: Rex Huppke

Civil Unions: One Step Closer to the Destruction of Marriage

More than that, as she writes, Laurie helps readers understand the fundamental aspects of this destructive agenda. Since supporters of traditional morality don’t typically devote themselves to the study of radical immorality, it’s not always easy for them to properly address unproven views:

  • “That homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race
  • that homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual acts
  • that homosexuality is biologically determined
  • that homosexuality is immutable
  • that marriage is solely about subjective feelings and sexual expression
  • that marriage has no relationship to gender or procreation
  • that moral disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons
  • that moral disapproval of homosexual acts is analogous to racism.”

Laurie writes that all of the arguments of the social left “are fact-less, emotional, and based on false premises.”

In this information and entertainment-flooded era, it’s not always possible to spend the necessary time learning about every controversial issue. That’s why thinkers like Laurie Higgins are a treasure. Below are two excerpts from her writings.

Laurie writes that homosexual activists and their allies are trying to persuade or compel everyone to accept the following

“Race is 100% heritable, immutable, and has no behavioral implications that are legitimate objects of moral assessment. In contradistinction, homosexuality is not 100% heritable, is mutable, and is centrally defined by subjective experiences of desire and volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

The following is not an original observation, but important nonetheless: whereas there are no former blacks, there  are scores of people who have at one point self-identified as homosexual, renounced homosexuality, and gone on to live successful heterosexual lives.

Homosexuality would be analogous to many conditions that are defined by powerful persistent desires and volitional acts. It is not analogous to skin color, biological sex, hair color, or disability. And homosexual activists and their allies are using our public schools to impose all of those unproven, fallacious assertions on our country’s children. If that’s not troubling enough, they’re engaging in censorship to advance their individual judgments and points of view.

There is no evidence for the claim that homosexuality is genetically determined. Every study that has suggested a correlation between some biological factor and homosexuality has been refuted or criticized for any number of test-design flaws or faulty conclusions.

The American Psychological Association says this about homosexuality causation:

“Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.”

The fact that same-sex attraction is persistent and seemingly intractable does not make it like race any more than the persistence and seeming intractability of pedophilic impulses make pedophilia like race. Behaviors that result from powerful, persistent desires are not automatically moral. And every behavior that results from the influence of biology is not automatically moral.

To argue otherwise would be a very scary moral proposition. Are we going to apply consistently the principle that which every behavior that results from biologically influenced impulses is automatically moral?

Up next: Part 2.

 

Print Friendly and PDF