Here’s a curious piece from the archives (2006-07-15) which as cogently as I’ve ever done lays out the case for the absurdity of the underlying premise put forth by those who prefer perverse sex (and their fellow-traveler pseudoscientists) that perversity is genetic.  Like many diabolic attempts at reality-inversion, this one has just enough of a tenuous connection to the truth to cause the unwary to pause and consider the possibility of it being true, thus in some measure winning the battle in the Era of SoundBites.  The tenuous connection, of course, is that total depravity is indeed inherited — just not the way they think.

My comments on an article by Chuck Edwards on homosexuality posted at

Well done article, Chuck.

A minor typo: “…no matter how much it may be distained, degraded…” – the word is, of course, disdained.

I particularly liked two or three points you made that don’t ordinarily get into the debate.

You did a superb job of dismissing tolerance as a justification for destroying society – both sides find the other’s position intolerable, so without the moral high ground, that’s a stalemate. The matter to be determined, then, is “Who has the high ground?”

Toward that end, I’ve always appealed, as you do here, to the argument from reality. Boys and girls pair off nicely, and no other combination works. It’s so obvious it’s almost silly.

As you point out, rights inhere in people, and one specific rebuttal to the pro-sin position that should frequently be made is it’s not a civil rights issue. You refer to this tangentially, and very effectively, with the reductio ad absurdum illustrated by incest, and your characterizing it as preference makes clear that when, for example, the comparison is attempted to the civil rights movement, it should be immediately countered that unlike being of, say, African descent, no one is of homosexual descent. Think about that – especially when the argument turns to some presumed hereditary basis for the preference.

Finally, in footnote [1] you conclude that hermaphrodicity is not fatal to your argument, which is true. But rather than simply state that, it may be helpful to point out that such abnormalities actually bolster your case in that it is apparant that they are a mistake – odd, dysfunctional, clearly wrong and in need of correction, not, as the queers might have it, a vindication of their premise that their choice is also reflected in nature.