Why is it Wrong to Cast Moral Judgment on Sexual Styles, Whether Heterosexual or Homosexual? (Part 1)

The reason why the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act caused such a stir is easy to understand. Those who have no moral problem with the various behaviors represented by the string of letters starting with LGBT (and ending who knows where) are scared to death that the American public might actually start thinking clearly about exactly what it is we are actually talking about.

Until many Americans saw ultrasound images of unborn babies, abortion was able to be thought of as some esoteric procedure. With those pictures, the conversation shifted from talk about a blob of cells to including the reality that the cell blob actually had arms and legs, a head and a heartbeat.

In the debate about homosexuality, for too many people we are still in the pre-ultrasound era. The nature of homosexuality is hardly ever addressed. Few commentators or public officials ever talk about the faulty premise that just because a person self-identifies primarily by how they prefer to have sex, that identification confers on them “rights.” The dominant liberal media completely evades that fundamental debate, mostly because the media is full of very uninformed people who at this point could not comprehend it anyway.

For a long time now I have been making a rather simple statement: When we do not challenge the legitimacy of expanding the list of how many types of humans there are (which is what the LGBTs do by identifying as “L’s” and “G’s,” etc.) we get societal confusion on a massive scale.

By the way, some of the most befuddled people are, unfortunately, in the ranks of those who see themselves as libertarians, such as Andrew Napolitano. In a recent Washington Times post, former judge Napolitano calls it complicated. I’m sorry, but it is really not.

This May is the 40th anniversary of my graduating from junior high school — even back then it wasn’t complicated.

There are biological males, biological females, and a tiny minority with chromosomal defects. That’s it. ‘Sexual orientation‘ is a fiction, and every time we ignore the reality of both mutability (there are no ex-blacks) and volitional action (human behavior) widespread bewilderment spreads even further.

The worst part of it is that these misled people do not know they’re dazed and confused. They think they are enlightened and progressive.

Those who speak of things attaining a certain status “as a matter of law” without addressing the nature of the thing — are merely engaging in a non-intellectual exercise. Having been to law school, I understand the thinking of the Judge Napolitano types. The fact that non-discrimination statutes have been passed by governmental entities does not change common sense or ontological reality.

There are males, females, and those with a birth defect. You ignore that at your peril. If you’re going to completely overlook the nature of sexual desire and sexual behavior, the entire political discussion surrounding it is actually quite silly. And sad. And destructive.

Up next in part two: Professor Hadley Arkes answer the question in the title.