The collapse of the homosexual agenda’s rhetorical house of cards

According to Laurie Higgins, cultural analyst at the Illinois Family Institute, the entire rhetorical house of cards of the so-called “homosexual rights” movement collapses once the nature of homosexuality is properly understood. To arrive at this understanding, however, requires critical thinking—a questioning of the claims and the premises of those who would toss out common sense morality in favor of a sexual revolution.

Those who attempt to use the powers of human reason to get at the true nature of homosexuality are accused of being “intolerant.” Disagreement, however, is not intolerance. I’ve addressed the issue of what tolerance is—and what it isn’t—in a previous post: “Privacy v. Revolution.” It’s not complicated. It hardly takes much effort at all to see how the word is misused by those who are completely intolerant of anyone who exposes their emotion-based arguments.

Those who see homosexual acts as immoral are called “haters.” The notion that anyone who disagrees with a moral supposition “hates” those promoting it is silly. Plenty of advocates of the homosexual agenda do not support the legalization of polygamy or polyamory. Does that mean they “hate” those who wish to have that lifestyle legalized? Of course not.

Those who oppose the propaganda put forward by the radical social left are also called “homophobes.” I addressed that childish notion in a post a few years ago—disagreement is not fear—but I did (and still do) wonder about the growing phenomenon “moralityphobia.”

Like all human desires and volitional acts, the question of right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy, normal or abnormal, and recommended or not recommended comes into play. Those promoting the homosexual agenda want society to treat as beyond reproach or judgment the behaviors represented by the letters LGBTQQI (etc.). However, they present no rational basis for doing so.

Higgins writes:

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 every behavior that results from biologically influenced impulses is automatically moral?

While homosexuality does not compare with race (see part 4), it does compare with polyamory (plural relationships). Laurie Higgins writes that some find this comparison offensive:

[B]ut their experience of offense does not mean the analogy fails. Polyamory is a condition that is defined by emotional/romantic feelings, sexual attraction, and volitional sexual expression, and therefore is very much like homosexuality.

The comparison to race is the offensive analogy in that race has nothing whatsoever to do with feelings or volitional acts.

Another excellent observation by Higgins is this:

Some would assert that I ought not ‘diminish a person’s choices of meaningful fulfillment in life and love based on race, sex or sexual orientation.’ But why are those the only conditions that should not be allowed to diminish a person’s life ‘choices of meaningful fulfillment.’ Why should society have the right to diminish the choices of someone who loves his sister or of polyamorists?

With close observation it becomes clear what the social left wants. Here’s Laurie Higgins on the topic:

Their goals are to win social acceptance of alternative sexual “lifestyles,” especially homosexuality (but including transgenderism, et al), and to make room for a revolutionary new sexual code that glorifies self-indulgence and embraces promiscuity.

Unless Americans want to allow themselves to get led down that path to depravity and social decay, more people have to start applying human reasoning to their examination of the nature of homosexuality.

Up next: Taking Congressmen Paul Ryan and Allen West to school.

Read the entire series here.