LGBTQ Contradictions

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive,” said Blaise Pascal. Indeed, attraction, not reason, is the engine of the LGBTQ movement. Otherwise it wouldn’t be riddled with contradictions such as:

There are no differences between men and women.

Except when we demand the right to marry people of the same sex because people of the opposite sex are just too different from people of the same sex.

You ought not judge me for what I do.

Except I can judge you for what you do. You’re an ignorant, intolerant bigot for supporting your political goals rather than mine, and for refusing to celebrate my same sex wedding.

People should be tolerant!

Except me when I’m intolerant of you and your position.

Discrimination is wrong!

Except when I discriminate against you. After all, I can refuse to bake a cake that’s against same-sex marriage, but you can’t refuse to bake one that’s for it. I’ll sue!

There is no gay agenda.

PayPal Founder Peter Thiel said this at the Republican National Convention: “When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom.  This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?”

Except when we at PayPal care enough to cancel our business plans in Charlotte because to the company, it’s absolutely a travesty of justice to keep men out of women’s bathrooms and showers. (Apparently, it’s not a travesty of justice to PayPal when Islamic countries literally murder gays and transsexuals. It’s business as usual for PayPal in those countries.)

It’s wrong to accommodate differences between men and women.

We at the NBA pulled our All-Star game out of Charlotte because it’s wrong to acknowledge and accommodate differences between men and women, especially by keeping them in separate restroom and shower facilities.

Except when we at the NBA acknowledge and accommodate the differences between men and women by keeping them in separate leagues, restrooms and shower facilities.

We are “inclusive and diverse.”

We at the NBA made our decision according to “the long-standing core values of our league. These include not only diversity, inclusion, fairness and respect for others but also the willingness to listen and consider opposing points of view.”

Except when it comes to “diversity, inclusion, fairness and respect” for the people of North Carolina who are being excluded because their diverse and opposing point of view is not respected by us at the NBA. You see, “Inclusion and diversity” to us and other liberals actually means exclusion for those who don’t agree with our approved views. (Whoops, there goes “diversity.”) But of course, you can see our point: it’s completely unreasonable for North Carolinians to want to keep biological men out of women’s shower facilities like we at the NBA do. After all, what could possibly go wrong? In order to rectify the situation, we at the NBA should move the game to New Orleans — a city with the exact same laws as Charlotte. That’ll show everyone that we stand on principle!

Why the Contradictions?

Truth is not the principle that the LGBTQ movement and their allies stand on. Truth is what corresponds to reality, and if anything obviously corresponds to reality it is that men and women are different. Humanity would not exist without those differences. They are not mere preferences; they are built into the very biological nature of the sexes.

Unfortunately, LGBTQ apologists are not concerned with the inherent contradictions in their positions. They are not on a truth quest but a happiness quest. Truth is being suppressed, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, because it gets in the way of what they find attractive; what they perceive will make them happy. This is understandable. In fact, all of us are apt to suppress the truth on occasion to get what we want. Most of our problems are self-inflicted and exacerbated by our unwillingness to follow the truth where it leads.

Suppressed truth has terrifying implications because power rather than reason is the currency of influence for those unwilling to follow the truth. If you don’t think so, just begin to articulate a rational case against LGBTQ political goals. You won’t get any rationality back, just hysterical cries that you must be forcibly shut up because you are the next Hitler! That’s what we see out of many in the LGBTQ movement — from the bullying by the misnamed Human Rights Campaign on corporate and sports America all the way to the Supreme Court, which has ignored its oath to uphold the true meaning of Constitution.

HRC bullying is bad enough, but the illegitimate use of power by the Court is even worse. Five lawyers adopted legislative power from the bench to impose their own political views on over three hundred million Americans. Along the way they charged opponents of their views with “animus” against homosexuals. Animus? That’s not true. But even if it was, why does the Court think that voter motivation has anything to do with constitutionality? Even the Court succumbs to the tendency to impugn motives and call people names when it’s short on reason. In fact, when your position isn’t true, you can distract attention from your contradictions by yelling louder and bullying all opponents as the LGBTQ movement is doing.

Regardless of your political party, it’s time to stand up to the bullies, with truth. If you don’t, those with increasing power will use it someday to shut you up on something you care about. Then the ultimate contradiction will be complete — your right to free speech, religion and association guaranteed by our Constitution will not be guaranteed for you anymore either.


Resources for Greater Impact:

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
23 replies
      • Kyle says:

        Except for the part where it isn’t a choice. If you think it is, then decide to be gay for a day to prove how easy it is to choose that lifestyle.

        Reply
        • Erik says:

          It may not be a choice to have homosexual urges, but it is certainly a choice to act on them or not. The Bible specifically condemns sexual intercourse with another of the same (biological) gender as sin.
          One might have a sexual attraction to children, but if he has sex with a child, it is entirely his choice that he does so and he faces the consequences of choosing to act on his urge.

          Reply
          • toby says:

            This coming from a book that says to not eat shellfish or dairy with meat. Have you never had shrimp cocktail or a cheese burger?

          • TGM says:

            It’s funny you should link pedophilia to the bible’s condemnation of homosexuality because the bible does not explicitly prohibit sex with children. One must read between the lines and do some hand-waving to get there. This is subjective at best.

            The biblical authors somehow found the time to explicitly condemn foods and homosex, but somehow overlooked children. In fact, we can even find passages that might condone it. So whatever consequences you are implying are secular.

  1. Andy Ryan says:

    “There are no differences between men and women”

    Who says this? I’ve never heard anyone make that claim. The nearest I’ve heard to that is from the other side – opponents of the very concept of trans rights, mostly Christian Right-wingers, who seem to argue that the only differences between men and women are physical, so that the idea of a man born in a woman’s body makes no sense.

    Reply
    • Randy Franklin says:

      Andy,

      Is that what “Christian Right-wingers” actually argue, or is it what they “seem” to argue. There is a difference!

      There being no differences between men and women is implied in the argument that gender is not an objective reality, which on its face is the main argument of the LGBTQ movement.
      On the other hand, making a singular argument based on the physical difference between men be women implies nothing more that than. Unless of course, it seems like it because one needs to support that which their identity is wrapped around, bolstering their self-esteem by manufacturing something that seems to set them above the other.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        “There being no differences between men and women is implied in the argument that gender is not an objective reality, which on its face is the main argument of the LGBTQ movement.”

        That doesn’t follow at all. The ‘LGBTQ argument’* implies that gender IS an objective reality and that there ARE differences between men and woman. The idea that you could be a man born in a woman’s body ONLY makes sense if gender IS an objective reality and that men and women are different. You’ve got it exactly backwards. In fact DENYING that this is possible relies on the idea that only differences between men and women are physical ones.

        * By which I assume you mean the argument that trans issues are based in reality rather than simple mental health problems. It should be noted that this is not a consensus view among all gays, lesbians etc.

        Reply
    • Taylor says:

      I have with the rhetoric, “raise boys and girls the same.” Except psychology will tell you that boys and girls are inherently so very different. They can’t possibly be raised the same.

      Reply
  2. Andy Ryan says:

    “Except when we demand the right to marry people of the same sex because people of the opposite sex are just too different from people of the same sex.”

    I don’t follow your logic – wouldn’t it be the other way around? If there’s no difference between the two sexes then there’s no reason legally to oppose gay marriage.

    The argument makes no sense anyway – is arguing that black and white people are the same incompatible with supporting interracial marriage? Would you say: “Blacks and whites are the same, except when you demand the right to marry people of another race because people of a different race are just too different from people of the same race”?

    Of course not. When a black woman marries a white man you don’t make any assumptions about whether she sees differences between whites and blacks – it’s irrelevant to whether they should be able to marry anyway.

    Finally, as I said in my post above, no-one argues that there are no physical differences between men and women. Whether there are mental differences is relevant. What some MAY argue is that there should be no differences as far as salary in concerned, or other legal matters. And there’s no inconsistency or conflict there with LGBT rights.

    Reply
  3. Andy Ryan says:

    “There is no gay agenda.
    PayPal Founder Peter Thiel said this at the Republican National Convention: “When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?”
    Except when we at PayPal care enough to cancel our business plans in Charlotte because to the company”

    How is this a contradiction rather than just two groups holding differing views? Why would we expect a billionaire Republican to be representative of everyone in the LGBT community? That’s like saying Christianity is inherently contradictory just because Frank Turek holds different views on gays to Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

    “Discrimination is wrong!
    Except when I discriminate against you. After all, I can refuse to bake a cake that’s against same-sex marriage, but you can’t refuse to bake one that’s for it. I’ll sue!”

    This kind of assumes that all discrimination is equal. Is it bigotry to oppose Neo-Nazis? I mean, if their point of view is that Jews shouldn’t be allowed to join a golf club, is it intolerant of me to say that’s wrong? I guess you could argue that, but then the word ‘intolerant’ starts to lose all meaning. Obviously it’s impossible to oppose ANY intolerance without being in some way ‘intolerant’ of the intolerant people, but most people have a concept of what constitutes ‘intolerance’ and I’d bet for most people it doesn’t include opposing other people’s intolerance.

    Similarly, I see differences between, say, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding and a gay person refusing to bake a cake for an anti-gay event. The first is someone saying “I have no problem with you, can you help me”. The second is saying “I reject you, please help me”. That said, have any gay bakers refused to make cakes for an anti-gay rights event, or is this just hypothetical?

    “If you don’t think so, just begin to articulate a rational case against LGBTQ political goals”

    I’ve yet to see this happen!

    Reply
  4. Andy Ryan says:

    No-one wants to defend the points in the article at all? Hmm. Funny, I read last weekend that one of the major causes of young people leaving the church is the religious leaders’ stance on gays. This article is a perfect example of it. Keep it up, you’ll keep pushing them away.

    Reply
    • Robert says:

      One point worth pursuing is that it is obvious that the differences between men and women are physical and psychological. Also there are only two genders. We christians hold to this view because we believe God designed it this way. If a man claims he is a woman trapped In a male body, which is more logical to conclude: that our beliefs about God and design are wrong?…or that the man has a psychological condition which should be addressed?

      Reply
      • Kyle says:

        That’s easy. Your belief in your god and design is wrong. We actually have proof of men inside the bodies of women. Google Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

        Reply
        • Nick says:

          If you read the bible and “seen” the Truth of how God created man and made woman from man then you might understand how we are not that different . The bible speeks to being equally yolked. Thus you might have more of your mother than your father in your dna . This does not make you a woman traped in a mans body it is simply the way you were designed. Therefore if you found a by design a partner they would be on the opposite spectrum. Most likely they both would have always “felt” different until God revealed the other part of the puzzle . Funny how we try to make our puzzle fit based on nothing but emotions.

          Reply
          • Kyle says:

            The syndrome I mentioned is nothing about “feeling” different. It is a physical difference on a genetic level. Funny how we don’t even look at the puzzle because your emotions or something…

      • Andy Ryan says:

        Robert, that’s not a contradiction – that’s a disagreement. A contradiction is when someone holds two positions that are in opposition to each other. You’re just saying you disagree with them, not that their positions are inherently contradictory.

        “If a man claims he is a woman trapped In a male body, which is more logical to conclude: that our beliefs about God and design are wrong?”

        People are born with missing limbs, extra limbs, dwarfism, blindness etc. We have women with undescended testes. We have hermaphrodites. So it’s self-evident that if there is a ‘design’ to which we are meant to conform that many people are born not fitting that design. Given that, and that you admit yourself that there are physical AND psychological differences between men and women, how can you rule out that a person could have the psychology of a man and the body of a woman, or vice versa?

        Reply
        • toby says:

          People are born with missing limbs, extra limbs, dwarfism, blindness etc. We have women with undescended testes. We have hermaphrodites.
          Andy, surely you know that this is our fault. Insert fallen world reference here.

          Reply
    • Taylor says:

      I think you aren’t getting a lot of responses because, no offense, it would be a waste of time. Sometimes people just want to argue for arguments sake and not get anything out of it… Your comments come across as such. “Pearls before swine” and all.

      By the way, a church should never compromise the Word of God. If “young people” leave because the church preaches Truth.. then they can answer to God for that one.

      Reply
  5. TobyDon says:

    Truth is truth. And truth can only be one way. When people say that everyone has a different point of view on these things, only one point of view can be truth. Therefore truth cannot have any contradictions period. Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth. If I say the sky is blue and that is truth, then everyone looks up and a majority agree it’s blue, but then others say, it depends on your point of view, like some would say the sky appears purple or orange or green or black. When in fact none of these colors are the absolute truth. The truth would be the sky is clear and transparent. Our perception of the sky makes it appear to us different colors at different times of the day and night but at the same time it’s always clear. It’s the light that makes it appear the way it is. Truth is not based on what we can see but just the way it is. All of the truth we seek is found in the Word of God, but depending on how you perceive it is how you will treat it. Once you find the truth, the world you seek as your own is turned upside down and you realize all your pleasures and what makes you happy are no longer relevant. Truth slaps you in the face and calls you to reality.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *