Friday, November 25, 2011

Paradigms of homosexuality

Homosexualist groups “have come to adopt a view of homosexuality we might call the ‘gay identity’ paradigm,” Sprigg observes. He explains that the foundations of the “gay identity” paradigm are beliefs that sexual orientation is an innate personal characteristic, like race, and that there is no harm in being homosexual.

“Based on these beliefs (or, in many cases, unspoken presuppositions), gay activist groups declare, and some others have come to accept, that for someone to believe that heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality is equivalent to believing that one race is superior to another, and therefore represents a form of bigotry and even ‘hate’ toward gays and lesbians as individuals,” Sprigg states.

“However, this conclusion about critics of homosexuality cannot be valid unless the presuppositions of the ‘gay identity’ paradigm are empirically true.”

“Yet the empirical case for the ‘gay identity’ paradigm is weak - science has not found that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors, and there is an abundance of evidence that sexual orientation can change.

The paradigm of social conservatives, on the other hand, is based not on “gay identity” but rather on the “homosexual conduct paradigm.”

“We believe homosexual conduct is harmful,” says Sprigg, “and therefore oppose demands that homosexual conduct and relationships be protected, affirmed, and celebrated. The harms associated with homosexuality include serious physical and mental health problems.”

Notwithstanding the experience of ex-gays:

Sprigg concludes: “In recent years, and even more so in recent months, public discussions about the issue of homosexuality have taken an ominous turn - those demanding public affirmation of homosexual conduct and relationships have begun to abandon the methods of honest and respectful debate, and demand that no debate on the issue of homosexuality be permitted.

Case in point-- Bill Whatcott:

“Some homosexual activists” he pointed out, “call criticism of any aspect of their sexual practices and political activities ‘hate.’ The ‘hate’ word is so abused and misused to bully people who disagree with leftist agendas and homosexual activism into silence, that the word is almost meaningless in the politically correct context.”

See it's not about hate. The homosexuals who try to silence so-cons are typically more hateful than the people who disagree with them.

Leftists typically re-defne words applying the emotional charge of the old definition to the new definition. Their use of language is typically self-serving.