Posted by
Nerdus Maximus on Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:05:53 PM
A recent Mike Adams article
responds to some common claims by homosexual activists, in particular
that homosexuality must be accepted because it "is genetic". Dr.
Adams, and many of those who commented, take the argument to moral
grounds. Taking such a direction is likely to insure that it remains
an argument. There is a logically more effective answer to this
particular claim, although counting on logic to mean much when talking
to a Gay Rights Koo-Aid drinker is also likely a mistake. Nonetheless,
it is worth knowing the approach.
The key here is that the person advancing the "It is genetic, therefore
it must be good." argument is confusing naturally occurring with good.
There are a number of examples that can expose this fallacy without
need for any moral agreement. Alcoholism is the best example to use
because it is also widely believed to be a genetic predisposition and
it results in behavior rather than directly as physical disease.
Unless the pro-gay speaker wants to maintain that alcoholism is good,
the "it's genetic" argument looses all power. The table is set to put
the pro-gay speaker on the defensive. Two approaches are readily
available.
The first is to ask the pro-gay speaker what evolutionary survival
value homosexuality has. Silence they very likely espouse Darwinism
they are exposed as a fraud if they can't handle this well. Worst case
scenario is to point out that you would not likely higher a contractor
who can't figure out that certain electrical or plumbing parts are
designed to fit together and others aren't.
Another approach is to ask the pro-gay speaker to positively
demonstrate what good homosexuality has done for society. The probably
response will be bowing at the alter of acceptance. Continuing to ask
for concrete examples, such as the continuation of the species and
society through procreation will usually leave the pro-gay speaker
either ranting or mumbling.
Nerdus
RSS