Explore
Stream Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception free from July 1st - July 7th!
Learn more

Feedback archiveFeedback 2012

Logic and lesbianism

Published: 25 August 2012 (GMT+10)

K.G. from Australia writes in response to our article Did CMI use a bad argument against homosexuality? With some questions about the logic of our rebuttals of homosexuality and whether health arguments against homosexuality also apply to lesbianism specifically. Dr Don Batten responds:

sxc.hu/bjearwicke

Hi just wondering if you could clarify a few things for me?

Firstly the point you make about how homosexuals DO cause harm to other people through the transmission of HIV. This is true in the case of gay men, but what about gay women? I cannot find studies that say that this is true in the case of lesbians.

Also the bible only ever mentions that sodomy is a sin and that relations between men is a sin. Homosexual women do not engage in sodomy?

These arguments are only relevant to half of the gay population?

Also the argument of

All things biologically inherent are moral.
Homosexuality is biologically inherent.
Homosexuality is moral.

You argue that premise 2 is incorrect so the premise is incorrect. I have read many peer reviewed academic articles that say there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological and that it may be a behavioural adaptation in relation to an over growing population.

So this would make the conclusion true, since both premises are true?

Unless you feel premise 1 is untrue and that all things biologically inherent are NOT moral.

If you do, then there would also be a conflict in the following argument.

All things biologically inherent are NOT moral
Homosexuality is biologically inherent
Homosexuality is NOT logical

That sounds fine until you apply the same rule to …

All things biologically inherent are NOT moral
Heterosexuality is biologically inherent
Heterosexuality is NOT moral

Well, that confuses things?

It seems morality and formal logic can clash somewhat?

Don Batten responded:

The Bible is clear that lesbian relationships are also part of the sinfulness of people in rebellion against God, along with male homosexual practices (and sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals):

Romans 1:21–28

For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (26) For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (27) and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [emphasis added]

The Bible calls male homosexual behaviour an ‘abomination’ (e.g. Leviticus 20:13). Bible commentators recognize that this simply refers to something that is against the created natural order. Clearly, two women were never meant to be partners as this cannot lead to procreation; it is against the created order (Adam and Eve, not Genevieve and Eve), so it is also an ‘abomination’.

The health consequences do seem to be less severe (as comparing verses 26 and 27 above might suggest also), but the other marks against it are similar.

“I have read many peer reviewed academic articles that say there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological and that it may be a behavioural adaptation in relation to an over growing population.”

There were some early papers, inspired by researchers who also happened to be homosexual activists, which argued that there was a ‘gay gene’, but these studies were later debunked. If there was any genetic basis to homosexual behaviour, the gene would die out of the population due to lack of procreation (you have to breed to pass on genes to the next generation). Homosexual activists were once keen to have homosexual behaviour declared as having a genetic basis, because it was seen as a way of legitimizing the behaviour (‘they can’t help it, they were born that way’, etc.). The early fallacious studies were reported widely and became part of the social mythology that ‘they were born that way’. However, many activists today are not so keen on the idea because if there is a ‘gay gene’, potential parents could use genetic screening to eliminate the ‘gay gene’ (ironically, many of those supporting ‘gay rights’ also support free-and-easy abortion, which makes genetic screening doable). Furthermore, many activists want to be seen as making free choices, not driven by some animal instinct. And that many have changed their sexual orientation, when they wanted to, illustrates that it is a choice, albeit affected by social circumstances unlike one’s race or sex.

If this was a behavioural adaptation due to overpopulation, then there would be a clear correlation between population density and the level of homosexual behaviour; I am not aware of any such correlation suggesting causality. Furthermore, this is a soul-destroying idea that dehumanizes homosexuals, making them into nothing more than animals driven by instinct.

Your ‘logic’ fails at a fundamental level, that’s why it became confusing. The antithesis of the premise “All things biologically inherent are moral” is not “All things biologically inherent are NOT moral” but “Not all things biologically inherent are moral”, which I demonstrated is true by a reductio ad absurdum argument.

There is no clash between sound formal logic and morality.

K.G. responded again:

Don,

Thank you for your feedback. Some more questions.

This argument

Premise 1: Behaviours that are biologically based are moral.
Premise 2: Homosexuality has a biological basis.
Conclusion: Therefore homosexual behaviour is moral.

And this counter argument?

Premise 1: Behaviours that are biologically based are moral
Premise 2: Kleptomania (or cannibalism, or … ) has a biological basis
Conclusion: Therefore kleptomania (or cannibalism, or … ) is moral.

Do Kleptomania and Cannibalism have a biological basis? I was not aware that they did. If they didn’t, would that be a flaw in the counter argument?

Are there any other actual human biologically based examples that are not moral?

Also this comment, “this is a soul-destroying idea that dehumanizes homosexuals, making them into nothing more than animals driven by instinct.” I don’t think that is dehumanising.

It is no less dehumanising then saying, heterosexuals sleep with the opposite sex to populate. It is an instinct that heterosexuals follow.

Also in regards to this comment on the topic of lesbians and HIV/AIDS ‘The health consequences do seem to be far less severe (as comparing verses 26 and 27 above would suggest also), but the other marks against it are similar.” What are these marks? Since you agree with the health argument though. Does that make it a weak argument to use against homosexuals due to the fact it only applies to half of the homosexual population?

These are running arguments amongst a group of people, that I would like answers to.

Thank you again.

sxc.hu/smojellojo
Katie

Don Batten responds:

The reductio ad absurdum argument does not depend on the premises being true (reducing the argument to an absurd example to show that it is unsound). It just illustrates that something having a biological basis does not establish that it is necessarily a moral thing to do by proposing a behaviour that could have a biological basis that is clearly not moral. However, some people have such a deep-seated tendency to steal that such kleptomania, for example, could well have a biological basis (at least a gene for stealing could conceivably help an individual survive to reproduce and the gene would then be passed on, unlike a putative homosexual gene).

But it is a somewhat moot point anyway because there is no convincing evidence that homosexual behaviour has a genetic basis. You wrote:

Also this comment, “this is a soul-destroying idea that dehumanizes homosexuals, making them into nothing more than animals driven by instinct.” I don’t think that is dehumanising.

It is dehumanizing because it suggests that people supposedly so affected cannot help their actions; there is something that forces them to be involved in same-sex sexual relations.

It is no less dehumanising then saying, heterosexuals sleep with the opposite sex to populate. It is an instinct that heterosexuals follow.

It is not just an instinct, like animals getting together. It is also a decision of the human will. People can decide not to marry and/or procreate; animals can’t make such a decision.

Also in regards to this comment on the topic of lesbians and HIV/AIDS “The health consequences do seem to be far less severe (as comparing verses 26 and 27 above would suggest also), but the other marks against it are similar.”

What are these marks? Since you agree with the health argument though. Does that make it a weak argument to use against homosexuals due to the fact it only applies to half of the homosexual population?

There are half as many lesbians as male homosexuals, so it does apply to ~67% of the homosexual population, so it is an argument against the majority of homosexual behaviour. Please read the article again for the ‘other marks’ against homosexual behaviour that also apply to lesbian relationships. The only argument that might not apply to lesbians strongly is the HIV argument, although there are other debilitating sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that are prevalent amongst lesbians. Even women identifying as lesbian who have never had sex with men (only about 7% according to one clinic serving women who have sex with women) have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts (Kathleen M. Morrow, et al., Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4(4):159–165, p. 159, 2000). The following short article from the American College of Pediatricians undoes the myth that lesbians are not vulnerable to a substantially elevated risk of STDs: http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/female-homosexual-behavior/.

These are running arguments amongst a group of people, that I would like answers to.

Thank you again.

I hope this helps. In short, you would not want anyone you cared for to be caught up in a lesbian lifestyle.

Kind regards,

Don Batten

PS. All promiscuity is against God’s standards, not just homosexual behaviour. This includes heterosexuals sleeping around, before or after marriage (fornication/adultery). God invented sex and if everyone followed His standards regarding its proper enjoyment (that is, no sex outside of marriage), practically no-one would suffer from sexually transmitted diseases. God loves us and wants what is best for us but when we reject Him to do our own thing, things can go very wrong. Jesus came that we might have life, and have it abundantly (John 10:10).

Helpful Resources