Occasionally IFI publishes discussions we’ve had with someone on our Facebook page in the hope that these discussions will help our readers better understand some of the fallacious arguments Leftists use to normalize homosexuality or the “trans” ideology. Here is one such discussion I had with Alex Deal on Tuesday. Mr. Deal left his initial comment in response to a comment left by an IFI supporter on our Facebook page that said no one is “born a homosexual” and that referred to homosexuality as “sexual perversion”—claims with which Mr. Deal took issue:
Deal:
I would caution you against lumping all people into one group. Some people are indeed born homosexual and it is not a choice.
As far as your statement regarding homosexuality being sexual perversion, that’s an extremely unfair and hateful idea to spew, I’ll be thinking of you.
Laurie Higgins:
What do you mean when you say that some people are born homosexual, and what is your evidence for that claim?
If homosexual activity is, indeed, a deviation from what is normal and good (i.e., a “perversion”), then it is neither unfair nor hateful to say so. Similarly, if it is a deviation from what is normal or good to have sex with one’s close relative, or with multiple people at the same time, or to include forms of violence in one’s sexual relationship, it is neither unfair nor hateful to say so.
And if your belief that homosexual activity is moral, normative, and good is wrong, then is it hateful of you to express it?
Deal:
1) I am the evidence that supports that claim [i.e., that people are born homosexual]. I have never once been sexually attracted to a female since I can remember. It’s the way I was born, I’ve tried changing my views and having a heterosexual relationship but it did not work, hence my logic of homosexuality not being a choice. Not to say my situation is a universal truth, every situation is different.
2) Referring to something as a “perversion” implies that it is a deviation from what is normal, it implies that it is wrong and should be avoided. That is an opinion, there is no moral universal truth regarding homosexuality and thus, implying that it is wrong or perversion is hateful to those that are indeed homosexual.
Laurie Higgins:
Well, now you’ve changed the argument. You have changed “born homosexual” to “not being a choice,” thereby positing a false dichotomy. A feeling, desire, or impulse could be unchosen but not biologically determined.
So, is it your position that all unchosen, powerful, intractable feelings, desires, and impulses are biologically determined?
And is your position that all unchosen, powerful, intractable feelings, desires, and impulses are automatically and intrinsically moral to act upon?
Your claim that there is no universal moral truth regarding homosexuality is itself an opinion. There may, indeed, be a universal truth about the moral status of homosexual activity.
But assuming for purposes of discussion that the belief that homosexual activity is immoral is merely an opinion, is the expression of all moral beliefs “hateful” or just moral beliefs with which you disagree. For example, if someone were to say that consensual incest between two adult brothers is perverse, would she be “unfair” and “hateful”? Or would it be hateful if someone were to express the view that polygamy or polyamory is wrong? Would it be “hateful” to say that sadomasochistic acts are wrong? Would it be hateful to say that porn use is immoral and perverse?
Deal:
If I was born homosexual then it obviously isn’t a choice…
There is no moral truth in anything, you do realize that right? What one person perceives as a moral truth the other could perceive as the opposite.
Laurie Higgins:
I’ve never claimed that your homoerotic attraction is a choice. I don’t believe it is. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that your feelings are biologically determined. There may be causes other than biochemistry that cause homoerotic attraction.
Moreover, even if biochemistry were found to be a causative factor in the development of homoerotic attraction, it would not mean that acting on those feelings is automatically moral.
You do know that your claim that there is no moral truth means that your moral beliefs are not true. It also means that your belief that the expression of moral positions that you don’t like is “hateful” is not true.
The fact that there is no consensus on which moral claims are true does not mean that no moral truths exist. Do you think that during the slave era the absence of consensus on the moral status of slavery meant that neither position were objectively true?
To that last response by me, Mr. Deal posted a laughing emoji. And so, on that childish note, our discussion ended.
My central goal in having this discussion with Mr. Deal was not to convince him that homoerotic acts are morally wrong. My central goal was to persuade him that expressing moral claims about volitional behavior—including his moral claims—is neither unfair nor hateful.
My central goal in publishing this discussion is to expose the incoherence of Leftist propositions. It is my hope that this discussion may help IFI readers become more comfortable challenging the fallacious propositions of friends, colleagues, and family members.
Listen to this article read by Laurie:
If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.
