Australia’s “You’re having a lesbian” ad versus Logic

By now many have heard of or seen directly the advertisement running in Australia in an effort to increase support for the concept of homosexual “marriage.” If not, here’s the add, from YouTube:

If you didn’t want to watch it, here’s a summary of the essentials. A young couple–a man and a woman with child (notice, pro-abortionists: we still say “with child”; but that’s another blog post)–is visiting their doctor for an ultrasound and listening to the baby’s heartbeat. The doctor asks if they want to know what they are having. They agree that they do, and the doctor tells them, “You’re having a lesbian.” The couple is delighted, and words appear on the screen saying, “Any child can be born gay. So marriage equality is every family’s issue.”

A number of points could be made about this, and surely many are out there making those points. The most common point made is that it has not been scientifically established that people are born with their sexual preferences locked in. Not at all.

However, I’d like to step around that for the moment and address a point that sometimes seems to go unsaid: that the argument underlying the “Homosexuals are born that way so homosexuality must be a morally acceptable choice” propaganda is false from the get go. And looking at why gives us a chance to play with logical structures. And, I admit: that’s the real reason I am bringing this up anyway. 🙂

The argument can be structured in Modus Ponens form:

(1) If homosexual tendencies are genetically determined, then homosexuality must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.

(2) Homosexual tendencies are genetically determined.

(3) Therefore, homosexuality must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.

[And, I should note that “genetically determined” is a specific filler for what could be a number of “nature versus nurture” possibilities, such as “determined by inherent brain structures,” etc.]

We have to note that the logical structure is valid, meaning that if premise (1) is true and premise (2) is true, then the conclusion in (3) must be accepted as unavoidably true, also. Therefore, understanding whether the conclusion is true requires us to visit the premises, themselves, to see if they are true. If they are not, then the conclusion cannot be said to be true.

Normally, I see defenders of marriage attacking premise (2), the idea that homosexual tendencies are genetically determined. And I can understand why, since it is taken as a given by an increasing number of people (as illustrated in the Australian ad) even though it has not been established as true at all.

However, I’d like to fill in the gap by pointing out that premise (1) is not true. That is, it is not true to say, “If homosexual tendencies are genetically determined, then homosexuality must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.”

Of course, according to the Bible it is immediately seen as not true. Outside of liberal thelogians looking to recraft God and Jesus Christ in their own image, this is generally well understood. (Rather than go on at length about this, I happily point folks to the Tomorrow’s World website, where they can search the topic “homosexuality” and read what comes up. Plain truth, folks.) But for someone who hesitates to take the Bible at its word, can it still be shown to be false? Indeed.

Consider substituting “homosexuality” with other conditions that have even stronger ties according to some studies to genetic predisposition. I have read of studies that demonstrate individuals with tendencies toward violence can have genetic predispositions and that some alcoholics can have can have genetic predispositions toward alcohol abuse. Again, these studies–if I recall correctly–show even stronger evidence of a cause and effect relationship. (Which would bring an element of a fortiori.) So consider these statements:

  • If alcoholic tendencies are genetically determined, then alcoholism must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.
  • If violent tendencies are genetically determined, then violence must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.

I don’t know anyone who would rationally agree with either of those statements, and, certainly, more could be made. (E.g., Here’s a paper discussing genetic predisposition to drug abuse.) The point is that, no, premise (1) is not acceptable: Even if it were found to be true that homosexual tendencies were genetically determined (again, something not yet achieved, by the way), then it would not follow that homosexuality must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice–not in any way, shape, or form. Genetic predispositions (or other such nature over nurture considerations) make for horrible determiners concerning moral acceptability. Consequently, whether premise (2) is true or not, the conclusion still does not follow as true.

And, frankly, the only reason we are living in a world in which the content of our genes is considered to be viable ground for deciding issues of morality is because we are losing our connection with the only solid source in existence of any absolute morality: An eternal God and Creator.

Gotta love logic. Don’t leave home–or watch TV in Australia–without it.

19 thoughts on “Australia’s “You’re having a lesbian” ad versus Logic

  1. obeirne

    Hello, Mr. Smith: Once again, an excellent blog from you in your analysis and summing up of what all this means.The ad is disgusting in every way, of course. What it implies is a blatant lie, but the general public won’t know that, unless they are otherwise informed. But the liberal electronic and print media of Australia, as well as the radical, left-wing political elements will be on board in this major deception being perpetrated on the Australian populace. Upsetting and tragic. 😦

  2. Leona D

    I liked that you used logic to refute premise (1). Nicely done. Premise (2), interestingly enough, as you may be aware, has also been proved false through scientific study (“Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic” http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647). Ironically, some of those studies were done in Australia…

  3. Not to sound contrary, and I believe I’m arguing a different aspect of premise #1 here… A more typical pro-homosexual argument could also be rendered, “If skin color is genetically determined, then skin color must be considered a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.” In reality, this statement makes no sense and it is a misconstrued take on what pro-homosexual arguments do say: You’re born with it like you’re born into a certain family or race.

    Isn’t it that the “morality” question is avoided altogether by those leaning toward that camp? If that’s the case, and I hope I’m wrong here, this logical construct will do little in swaying them one way or the other. Then again, those who are concerned with homosexuality being a moral issue would do well to heed your point.

    Thanks for the lesson!

  4. Thanks, Mike, and you don’t sound contrary at all! To some extent, I was trying to distinguish between tendencies & leanings and choices in behavior. For instance, I lean toward old school, 1960s-70s Japanese animation, but I don’t dive into it much–except for occasional Star Blazers/Yamato stuff, which is too awesome to ignore–because I have a different life to live. But, yes, there is a desire out there to avoid “morality” as a measure, but it is not truly so, as it is used by many pressing the issue on both sides. For instance, the commercial itself refers to “marriage equality” — with the implication that equality is a good to be sought after. One can argue that it isn’t a good as much as a matter of fairness, but then, again, one is making a distinction of good & bad: fairness is good, unfairness is bad, and this is unfair.

    The moral state of affairs is unavoidable, and it is played by both sides, even when the word is not used. And regardless: we could replace the words “morally acceptable” with “socially acceptable” — it would be more sanitized (though hypocritically so), but the logic would still play out the same.

    Thanks, again!

  5. Norbert

    I’m going off here on a tangent, but I think there is a wee bit of logic in it.

    Year’s ago prior to the internet age, I read an article about what science says about the nature vs nurture argument on homosexuality. It was written by a homosexual reporter and I would give him credit for being intellectually honest about one of his conclusions on the topic.

    He interviewed several scientists whose testing showed sexuality is determined genetically. He also interviewed other leading scientists whose testing showed sexuality is determined through environment. One of his conclusions was because of the contradictory evidence, he didn’t know what single cause would create homosexuality.

    It seems to me in this modern age, numerous people would read Job where God questions him about how the world works and the attitude would be, “But we have Science!”.

    I do believe science can produce a state of high mindedness, an intellectualism where people know more than they understand.

  6. Steven

    Great write-up on this subject Mr. Smith. Whenever I hear this topic come up I always think of what legendary Pastor John Hagee always says “Homosexuality is a choice”. That statement is 100% correct. It’s just like if I wanted to steal something from a store (for example). I can choose to steal or not to steal. I can choose to go through a red light or not go through it. I can choose to be an alcoholic or not touch alcohol altogether etc. etc.

    The point is, everything in life is a choice. At this point, I need to quote myself when I always say “One of the greatest gifts that God has given us is the gift of ‘Freewill’. We were not made into robots, but into free individuals given the choice to either follow God’s way or rebel. Ultimately, we will all be judged according to our choices”. The radical left-wing liberal agenda/media says people were born this way because it gives them the “excuse” to do what they want. After all, those kinds of people are blatant rebels against God’s laws and they are against following anything or anybody but their own fleshly desires.

  7. Thanks, all, for your comments. I might interject that I have heard from homosexuals who do not believe they were “made” or born that way (though they might be open to that being true for others) and who readily proclaim their their actions are rooted in their choices. They’ve said that they find the constant focus on “born that way” thinking waters down what they believe should be the more important point: that they, and anyone, should be free to choose to do however they like with regard to sexual behavior.

    It reminds me of the honest homosexual reporter and activist someone posted a video of on these pages a week-or-two-or-three ago who said that the goal of some homosexuals in the push for homosexual “marriage” is not actually the freedom to “marry” but is, rather, the utter destruction of marriage altogether so that no relationship — same-sex, different-sex, two people, more than two people, etc. — is given priority of place or recognition above any other. She mentioned that she feels bad pushing for “marriage” equality because she knows it is essentially a lie, when the real purpose (at least of some, surely not of all) is actually to destroy marriage as an institution.

  8. Teresa

    The ad is ridiculous anyway, logic or no. There’s no way you could look at genetics with an ultrasound. You can’t even always clearly distinguish outer features. The ad is pure propaganda. There’s absolutely no way sexual “preference” or perversion could be distinguished.

  9. Right. I suspect that they know that, Teresa, but that they are only using it as a device to communicate the concept — taking the time when a couple normally finds out “what they are having” and trying to make viewers think: what if your baby were actually destined by biology to be a homosexual, but you didn’t know it yet?

  10. obeirne

    All wonderful and insightful comments here! However, it is sad to see that the electronic and print media have bought into and are promoting the gay agenda and have made no effort to investigate the homosexual lifestyle and its consequences physically and mentally. It is the same in Ireland as it is in the USA, Canada, Great Britain. When commenting on articles or news pieces in the Irish Times I have provided revealing statistics on the effects on praticing homsexuals of their way of life and challenged the editor to ask its journalists to investigate the veracity of the information I provided. Sadly the editor has not risen to the challenge. So all those of us who know the truth is try to present it at every opportunity through FB and in submitting comments to articles editorials and articles in the newspapers on this subject.

  11. Those who want to promote the homosexual agenda like to blur the distinction between “tendency” and “choice”, as if we must act out every “tendency”. But we do NOT have to act out our tendencies. We can resist temptations to do what God says we should not do. There are many verses in the Bible in which God acknowledges that our hearts sometimes have the tendency to want to do wrong things, but we are to resist the temptation and obey what God says.

    The heart of the matter is that those who advocate homosexuality do not want to acknowledge God’s authority over their lives. They want no other authority over them than their own “tendencies”.

  12. smorrison

    How can they put out such an ad when studies of identical twins in Australia, Europe, and the U.S. have proven that genes can’t be the reason for homosexuality. We aren’t born that way. Go to http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647 to read the study. Somewhere we have to quit blaming everything on genes and start taking personal responsibility for our lives.

  13. These people do not care about logic, truth, or facts. They have an agenda to push, and nothing else matters to them, and they are using deceit, emotion, pressure, and intimidation to push their agenda.

  14. Mel

    I think the ad is powerful. It is not supposed to be realistic- of course there is no way to tell sexual orientation in an unborn child. The point is that any child in any family could be gay. Therefore equality for same sex attracted people is an issue that should concern everyone. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice for most people.

  15. rouellachristina

    Hi Mr. Smith! Great post, btw. Very timely, too, considering all the push for same-sex marriage and gender equality happening in several developed nations. It is sad that so many people are appealing to the emotions of the masses just to push for a cause that is neither acceptable nor normal.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s