Logical errors of the sexually confused culture

Posted: July 14, 2015 in Apologetics, Christians & Culture, Ethics, Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage, Relativism

Rainbow-White-HouseGiven the recent same sex marriage ruling (SCOTUS) by the Supreme Court, one cannot help but be amazed at the rapid pace with which this moral and sexual revolution has happened. However, I want to challenge the moral and logical foundation this movement is based upon. The LGBT movement, along with its societal and legal implications, is built upon arguments with shaky foundations and faulty logic. Those imposing their moral will on society seem more concerned with desires and feelings than rationality and moral absolutes.

Here are a few of the primary errors in thinking committed by the supporters of the LGBT movement.

Is does not make ought – What is the case (i.e. how someone feels sexually) does not determine what morally ought to be the case (i.e. how someone should act sexually). Put another way, biology does not determine morality. Champions of so-called same-sex marriage frequently cite that gay couples should receive the moral blessing of society because the couples feel a certain way. Their sexual proclivities are oriented toward the same sex; therefore, their sexual actions are morally acceptable the logic goes.

But since when does our feelings determine the rightness or wrongness of our actions? Never! This line of reasoning could be used to justify nearly any action, regardless of the evil. In fact, this logic could be applied to those who feel morally outraged by homosexual acts. Dissenters feel outraged; therefore, their indignation is morally right. But certainly proponents of the new sexual revolution would not condone such moral outrage. So why the double standard? Morality can only be rooted in a transcendent source outside the feelings and desires of the individual or the law of the land. We must test our feelings and desires against this God-given moral order, not the other way around.

Majority opinion does not define morality. A second line of argument used to support same sex marriage and homosexual behavior is the moral acceptance of the majority. But once again, this is fallacious. Anti-Semitism and pro-slavery were both majority moral opinions, but this had no bearing on the rightness of their position. In fact, this current sexual revolution came about as a revolt against the conservative moral majority, claiming it was wrong. So this “new majority” cannot use its majority status as an argument for its rightness.

The purpose of laws in our constitutional republic is to save us from the tyranny of the majority. Laws, according to the Declaration of Independence, are rooted not in majority opinion (nor the opinion of judges), but in the moral law of God. Any other source will prove a faulty foundation upon which no sound moral argument can be constructed.

Feeling vs. Fact. The story of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner highlights this anti-scientific fallacy propounded by the new sexually confused culture. Bruce, though biologically a male, is now claiming to be a female. But can the feelings of a man change the reality of nature? Does what he wants to be change what he really is? Certainly not! Yet as a culture, we are applauding and encouraging this delusion. We have shoved science and reality to the side, giving way to our sexual desires.

Why go to such lengths to promote what is nothing more than a mental delusion? Consider the words of Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry: “Sex change is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

So why does such unreasonable argumentation occur? And more troubling, why does such reasoning find the approval of so many? According to Robert Reilly, author of Making Gay Ok, the answer lies in the rationalization of behavior. Human beings are moral creatures, having a basic understanding of right and wrong. However, in order to proceed in behavior they desire to do yet know is wrong, they must rationalize. Otherwise, their conscience will not let them rest. The conscience rationalizes and you feel ok.

However, the mind cannot stop at rationalization. In order to continue in its rationalization, it must garner the acceptance of others, and then more, etc. Rationalization logically leads to moral applause and idealization of your new behavior. If your behavior is not applauded, it cannot be rationalized in good conscience. Therefore, the mind sacrifices reason on the alter of bodily desire. It must advance the rationalization of the new behavior at the cost of logic and sound moral reason. It must seek universal acceptance and justification, lest the mind be accused of wrongdoing and the new sexual desires forcefully suppressed.

So what will you choose? Desire or logic? Feeling or fact? Subjective moral majority or transcendent moral law? Unrestrained sexuality or sound moral reasoning? The choice is yours.

Jordan

Comments
  1. Kathy Tong says:

    Good article – well said J

    Kathy Tong, Controller

    Frantz Building Services, Inc.

    1326 West Ninth Street

    Owensboro, KY 42301

    Phone: (270) 685-5383

    Fax: (270) 685-7097

    http://www.frantzbuilding.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s