A Position Statement on Alternative Sexualities

Dissenting opinion on societal acceptance of alternative sexualities coalesces around three crucial points: The first is the reification of sexual orientation to justify homosexuality. Truth is sexual orientation is simply a concept and thus without any inherent connection to the real world. The second is the fact of ontological inferiority. Even if sexual orientation did have real-world substance, the substance of a homosexual orientation would still be inferior to the substance of a heterosexual orientation. The third is the fact of axiological inferiority. Even if the substance of a homosexual orientation were equal to the substance of a heterosexual orientation, the moral and ethical inferiority of the former vis--vis the latter would still justify the privileging of heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality. The reification of sexual orientation for the purpose of justifying alternative sexualities is well known. Consider the following quote from the Journal of Social Work & Human Sexuality:
It can be argued that there are no homosexuals. Indeed, it can also be argued that there are no heterosexuals. The labels heterosexual and homosexual are relatively new, as is the idea that people can be categorized by their sexual preference. Until the late 19th century, when the terms homosexual and heterosexual were invented, terms like "sodomy," "buggery," "pederasty," and "unnatural vices" were used to describe criminal acts of which, presumably, anyone could be guilty. Since then, "homosexuality emerged as a total personal identity. According to Focault, "The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species." The idea that people can be classified by their sexual gender preferences is a reification: that is, taking a concept (e.g., sexual preferences) and treating the total person as if he or she were permeated with that quality; indeed he or she is that quality.1

Figure 1: The challenge facing gay activists . . .

THE UNREALITY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION:

Sexual orientation is an abstraction, not a reality. Treatment of abstractions as if they are real is known as "reification." Arguments based on reification are notoriously fallacious. For example, on average, Switzerland is entirely flat, but that says nothing about the real topography of Switzerland, and to argue or act otherwise would be to make a huge mistake. The same is true of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation exists as a concept, but to argue from its conceptual existence to its existence in the real world would likewise be a huge mistakelike arguing Switzerland is flat.
Figure 2: The evolution of alternative sexualities . . .

Sexual orientation, along with all other abstract concepts, is alien to the material world of cause and effect. The story of two duck-hunting statisticians illustrates. When the first flock of ducks flushed from the water, both hunters fired at the same time at the same duck, one overshooting by a foot and the other undershooting by the same amount, whereupon both statisticians jumped for joy saying, "We got him! We got him!"

"Teaching Social Workers to Meet the Needs of the Homosexually Oriented," Journal of Social Work & Human Sexuality, Vol. 2, No. 2/3, 142
1 http://historeo.com/?p=84 Bill Brewer, 2012

Figure 3: Concepts (e.g., average shot) do not produce real-world effects the bird lives!

The humor here is in the occupational predisposition of our hunter-statisticians to make a reification error; i.e., to confuse the efficacy of their average shot (a concept) with the inefficacy of their real-world marksmanship. In that respect, it illustrates why sexual orientation (a concept) cannot possibly be the explanation (cause) of homosexual behavior. To get real-world effects, one must look to real-world causes. The real-world causes of same-sex sexual behavior are manifold and likely include cultural, social, philosophical, religious, educational, familial, experiential, biological, physiological, psychological, moral/ethical, and volitional elements. But these same elements also provide the raw material for all kinds of orientations: conservative, liberal, racist, welfare, criminal, gang, addictive, and pedophile come to mind. Many of these "orientations" are unappealing and some are downright unacceptable but none operates in the real world to actually cause the behavior it conceptualizes. Just imagine someone justifying racism by claiming it as part of his or her nature. Then (re)consider the same fallacious connection so often alleged between sexual orientation and homosexuality.

But isnt sexual orientation a gene thing? The answer is no. Gay activists though tend to emphasize genetic origins of sexual orientation because they best support a deterministic and therefore more morally neutral stance on sexual orientation. Genes-only explanations, however, are overthrown by studies of identical twins. One early (and extremely biased) study2 showed a concordance rate (sexual identity match) of 52% within pairs of identical twins. In a better, more recent study, concordance was only 20%. Gay activism has nevertheless prospered despite these low concordances because the general population fails to appreciate just how disconfirming these numbers really are. For example, even if the 52% concordance were true (and it is not), the probability would still be only that of a fair coin toss and thus insufficient to support determinism. Later, better studies showing lower concordances are of course even more unsupportive of a deterministic interpretation.

Figure 5: Twin studies disprove the reality of sexual orientation . . .

Twin studies are also problematic to gay activists because they prove too much. Concordance of identical twins for cocaine abuse was almost 80% in one recent study3 compared to 20% for sexual orientation in another,4 thus begging the question of how gay activists can possibly argue for acceptance of sexual orientation when an unrelated orientation has over twice the evidence but absolutely no chance of social acceptance. Most notable of all, and something so obvious that it is not even checked or reported, is that the concordance of identical twins on the matter of race is always 100%, thus refuting the single-most repeated gay-activist claim of all; i.e., "sexual orientation is like race." Needless to say, twin studies unequivocally disprove that idea. If in fact sexual orientation were like race, then the concordance of identical twins for sexual orientation would have to be 100%, and of course they are nowhere near that percentage.
2 3

Figure 4: Components of sexual orientation and a sampling of other possibilities

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Mar;78(3):524-36. Br J Psychiatry. 1998 Oct;173:345-50. 4 J Pers Soc p svchol 2000 Mar}8(3) 524-36
Bill Brewer, 2012

http://historeo.com/?p=84

The reality of race, over against the unreality of sexual orientation, is further highlighted by a study published in February 2005 study5 in the American Journal of Human Genetics in which researchers studying a large multiethnic population found near-perfect correlation between certain genetic markers and the self-identified race of participants. Using that as a benchmark, if sexual orientation were truly like race, then researchers should be able to achieve a similar, near-perfect correlation between genetic markers and self-identified sexual orientation. No one can do that though, and twin studies suggest that such a correlation will never be possible. In the meantime, a remarkable contradiction on the subjects of race versus sexual orientation is the wariness of the prevailing culture toward admitting the reality of race, despite all the evidence for that reality, compared to the eagerness of that same culture to affirming the reality of sexual orientation, despite a stunning lack of evidence for the reality of that phenomena. This huge inconsistency is no doubt attributable to the amazing success of gay activists in reifying sexual orientation in the face of both contrary logic and contrary facts. Gay activists have devoted so much energy to inventing and reifying sexual orientation because without that reification, homosexuality has no chance of gaining or remaining in the mainstream of American life. The assertions go like this: Sexual orientation is real. Homosexuals embody their orientations within their very own natures. Those orientations are inherently good. Arguments to the contrary are hate speech. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Professional assistance to people seeking relief from same-sex attraction should be outlawed. Homosexuality is like race and should be given ethnic status. Recruitment into homosexuality is impossible. Since recruitment is impossible, exposure of children and young people to gay propaganda is harmless. Parental concerns with openly gay public school teachers are unfounded. Programs encouraging young people to question their gender identity are risk-free, even humane because the quicker children discover their real sexual identity, the happier they will be. Establishment of homosexual support groups in schools is necessary. Referral of troubled youth to those groups for help is a kind and compassionate thing to do.

Figure 6: Some of the second and third-order effects of reifying sexual orientation

BUT if sexual orientation is not really real, then the reality of recruitment comes to the forefront and all of the preceding assertions begin to unravel. Critique of homosexual ideology is not hate speech. Homosexuality can be prevented, and to some extent cured. Professional services toward those ends are warranted. Recruitment is possible6 and should be prevented. Exposure of young children to gay propaganda is abusive.7 Parental concerns are well-founded. Programs encouraging children to question their gender identity constitute institutionalized abuse. Establishment of homosexual support groups in schools should be outlawed. Referral of troubled youth to such groups is cruel, possibly criminal. The threat to gay activism in all of this is the very real possibility of homosexuality being forced out of the mainstream and back onto the margins of society.

THE ONTOLOGICAL INFERIORITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY:

Even if substance of sexual orientation were real, the

substance of a homosexual orientation would still be inferior to the substance of a heterosexual orientation.
Figure 7: The Great Chain of Being

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 February; 76(2): 268275.

http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admittingthat-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/ 7 http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-bay-state-teenstaught-queer-sex/
http://historeo.com/?p=84 Bill Brewer, 2012

Ontology refers to the quality of being. In terms of autonomy, plants are ontologically superior to rocks. Animals are ontologically superior to plants. Humans are ontologically superior to animals, and on and on . . . From a philosophical standpoint, the substance of an ontologically superior entity is polluted when conflated with the substance of an ontologically inferior entity, but not vice versa. For example, a drop of sewer water in a bottle of fine wine pollutes the wine, but a drop of fine wine in a bottle of sewer water does not pollute the sewer water. The equation of play money with real money debases the value of real money, but it does not debase the value of play money. The equation of homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage debases heterosexual marriage, but it does not debase homosexual marriage.

An ontologically inferior entity can caricature the substance of an ontologically superior entity, but the inferior can never match the substance of the superior and the inferior's caricature of the superior will eventually fail. Play money is ontologically inferior to and a caricature of real money. Thus real money can buy play money, but play money cant buy real money. Homosexual marriage is ontologically inferior to and a caricature of heterosexual marriage. Thus heterosexual marriage legitimates homosexual marriage, but homosexual marriage cannot legitimate heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is grounded in something really real human physiology. Interracial marriage is also grounded in something really real race. Gay marriage, in contrast, is grounded only in a concept specifically invented to justify things like gay marriage. Since the substance of gay marriage is not grounded in reality, it can only function as a caricature of real marriage. Recognition of interracial marriage differs from recognition of gay marriage in that race and human physiology are real while sexual orientation is not. Gay marriage should therefore be understood as marriage in "black-face."

Figure 9: A great example of the "reification fallacy" in action

Figure 8: Illustrations of ontological inferiority/superiority

A huge irony in the equation of gay marriage with interracial marriage is that the perniciousness of slavery in America was magnified by its justificatory reification as a matter of race. Compare that to gay activists who want to do the same by reifying sexual orientation to justify alternative sexual identities.

http://historeo.com/?p=84

Bill Brewer, 2012

The ontological inferiority of homosexuality extends to everything it touches. Heterosexual marriage confers legitimacy upon children, but homosexual marriage needs children as a way of conferring legitimacy upon it. Heterosexual marriage is a source of legitimacy. Homosexual marriage consumes legitimacy. The ontological inferiority of the latter vis--vis the former is apparent everywhere. Homosexuals thus seek legitimacy by caricaturing heterosexuality, including demands upon society for marriage and for children. Contingency is a classic criterion of ontological inferiority. Homosexuality is contingent upon heterosexuality in that homosexuality cannot exist without heterosexuality, but heterosexuality can easily exist without homosexuality. Every homosexual owes his or her existence to heterosexuality, but no heterosexual owes his or her existence to homosexuality. Homosexuality is therefore ontologically inferior to heterosexuality.

Sexual orientation as a justification for alternative sexualities stumbles over questions of virtue and moral authority. The telos (end or design) of human identity (male and female) is self-evident in human development/ physiology and associated gender identities undergirded by natural affections and reinforced by the social structures that emerge from the same. What then is the telos of alternative sexualities and associated gay, lesbian, bisexual, transvestite, inter-sexed, and questioning (GLBTIQ) genders? If the virtue of a horse is in its swiftness and the virtue of a knife is in its sharpness, what then are the virtues of GLBTIQ people as GLBTIQ people? How do we know a "good gay" when we see one? Western culture socializes males and females to heterosexual norms only with great difficulty. What hope then is there of socializing people to GLBTIQ norms when such norms apparently do not even exist? The grudging answer of course is there are and will be no norms, not for GLBTIQ folks, and in the future, not for heterosexuals either. Thus the price of admission for mainstreaming homosexuality into American life is a revolutionary surrender of all gender norms for everyone. And so there can be no happy coexistence between traditional sexuality and alternative sexualities because accepting the latter disinvests the former. Threats of hate speech allow this radical change to proceed without clarity, without notice, and without protest. Moral authority is the ability to influence people by appealing to a sense of obligation, or in other words, to make a claim on their consciences. Cultural pluralism creates an environment where subcultures interact in ways that tend to mutually undermine their respective moral authorities. Pluralistic cultures are thus inherently deficient in moral authority. Gay activism flourishes in a pluralistic culture because pluralism undermines the particulars of subcultures that would ordinarily operate to push alternative sexualities to the margins. In a pluralistic culture, the fringe frequently becomes the center and that center is often without moral authority. In American society, gay activism has taken center stage, and like pluralism in general, it lacks moral authority. Gay activists make up that deficit by laying claim to the moral authority of others, most often by identifying their cause with the civil rights movement. All of that evaporates though when the connection between sexual orientation and race is exposed as illegitimate. It gets even worse when the identification of gay rights with civil rights is understood as the moral equivalent of "identity theft," with gays presuming to "write checks" against the suffering of others.
Bill Brewer, 2012

Figure 10: Yet another and even more compelling example of ontological inferiority/superiority

Prudence demands society take notice of the preceding things the same way prudence would demand society take notice of the difference between such things as real money and play money, between fine wine and sewer water. A society that cannot make such obvious distinctions is a society in deep trouble.

THE AXIOLOGICAL INFERIORITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY:

Even if the substance of a homosexual orientation were equal to the substance of a heterosexual orientation, the moral and ethical (axiological) inferiority of the former vis--vis the latter would still justify the privileging of heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality.

http://historeo.com/?p=84

Figure 14: In a pluralistic culture, Superman renounces his citizenship . . .

Figure 11: In a pluralistic culture, character is replaced by personality, virtue by values, calling by lifestyle, and on and on . . . . The net effect is to create an environment where virtue and moral authority are lacking and gay activism can flourish.

Figure 15: . . . and Green Lantern comes out as gay . . .

Figure 12: Pluralism sweeps away higher values and the moral authority that goes with them . . .

Suffering is THE crucial criterion for moral authority but not just any kind of suffering will do. For moral authority to be unequivocal it must be grounded in innocent, enlightened, free-will suffering on behalf of others. This is not to say no moral authority accrues if any of the preceding attributes are absent or limited it just means moral authority is more or less diminished to that extent. Since no human being possesses absolute moral authority, the preceding criteria best serve as a model for analyzing claims to moral authority rather than as a blackwhite checklist.
Figure 16: Moral authority is perfected in innocent, free-will suffering

Figure 13: Tolerance is not a substitute for a unified system of virtues. Pluralism substitutes moral neutrality for tolerance. If tolerance is not an adequate substitute for a unified system of virtues, then moral neutrality is even less so.

on behalf of others . . .

http://historeo.com/?p=84

Bill Brewer, 2012

How then do GLBTIQ devotees stack up in terms of moral authority? Using the preceding model, do gays suffer? Is their suffering innocent? Do gays choose to suffer? Is their suffering on behalf of others or solely for themselves? Is their suffering enlightened? Putting it all together, do gays commend themselves to the consciences of other by freely, innocently, and wisely bearing the burdens of others? A useful exercise would be to analyze both the civil rights and the gay rights movements and then compare results. Truth is gays have forfeited claims against individual and collective consciences in light of their threat to the common good. For example, they insist on the right to donate blood regardless of risk to blood supplies. They refuse to go public in the interest of public health." They have lobbied for the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" heedless of risk to national defense. They want the right to adopt no matter the effect on children. They want to shift the economic burdens of gay lifestyles to others. They are unconcerned about the pervasive moral confusion inherent to their ideology. They pursue their rights to the detriment of their own (e.g., forced outings); to the detriment of traditional marriage, family, and children; at the expense of those seeking relief from same-sex attraction; and through propaganda, violence, and intimidation. Gays outrage moral sensibilities by failing to differentiate the deaths of HIV carriers from the deaths of their victims (e.g., the "AIDS quilt"). In the late 70s and early 80s, gay activists successfully steered the blood products industry away from doing donor screening. Tens perhaps hundreds of thousands died from HIV-infected blood. Almost all hemophiliacs who received even a single dose of clotting factor between 1980-1985 died. Sexual orientation by itself confers no moral authority, not for heterosexuals, not gays. Deference to gay activism is moral cowardice and ignorant. Resistance to gay activism requires wisdom and moral courage.

Figure 17: Competing norms of gay activism vs. traditional morality leave little room for genuine tolerance from either side

Traditional norms and the new normal of gay activists are radically different. The zone of tolerance is therefore small. Gay activists have tried to widen that zone by inventing and reifying sexual orientation, caricaturing heterosexuality, appropriating the moral authority of others, and misrepresenting moral neutrality as tolerance. The smallness of the zone of tolerance, however, is NOT a problem to be solved but rather a reality to be respected. The natural social location of homosexuality is on the fringe of society. Bringing it into the mainstream is ultimately cruel to both gays and straights alike. Homosexual ideology is incompatible with a just, enduring, and prosperous society. Bill Brewer
http://historeo.com, brewerwt@hotmail.com

"20 Reasons to Question the Gay Agenda" pdf format

http://historeo.com/?p=84

Bill Brewer, 2012