Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies. 

1- Is - Ought Fallacy - Human anatomy is said to provide  a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.” The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics. 

2 - Vicious Circularity  - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.  A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled. 

In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, wisdom, authority & power, goodness, justice, holiness,& truth, sexual ethics inhere in the mind of God.   There are no other necessary minds in which ethical principles inhere. 

The Bible teaches that the role of the Created Order is to testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority (Romans 1:20).  When we use the word “natural,” in Romans 1:27 - 28 to refer to human anatomy & physiology (which is, according to Mr. Rodriguez, Michael Brown, & others, obviously heterosexual), then we are using the word “natural” in naturalistic fashion, thereby suppressing God’s existence, attributes, & authority in favor of using our image, our attributes, & our authority as the epistemic basis for sexual ethics. 

The Scriptures appeal to God’s existence, attributes, & authority in Romans 1.  Robert Gagnon, Greg Koukl, James White, Jared Moore, & others inevitably appeal to the human body, saying that God directs us there in Romans 1. If true, then there wasn’t anything wrong with the thought processes of the pagans described in Romans 1 when it came to their overall sexual ethics as long as their ethics conduced to heteronormativity.  They got the idolatry & witchcraft wrong, but they otherwise reasoned properly.  

That can’t be true.  Why? Because Romans 1:20 clearly states that the natural teleology of the Created Order is to testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority, & only God’s existence, attributes, & authority provide the required truth conditions to do sexual ethics.  Human & animalian characteristics do not rise to that level.  Thus, the tradition-bound perspective is viciously circular; the correct perspective must be virtuously circular.

3 - Overspecification - Contextually, the range of meaning for “natural” is abstract & moral not physical & ontological. It cannot bear the meaning the tradition-bound view employs.  Moreover, the tradition-bound view ultimately agrees with the thinking processes of the pagans described in 1:22 - 23 not God’s testimony in 1:20.  

How so?  The pagans in Romans 1:22 - 24 suppressed God’s existence, attributes, & authority in favor of their own existence, attributes; & authority - which is the very definition of the Is - Ought Fallacy.  

4 - Special Pleading - If a gay man appeals to his biology then Greg Koukl says (correctly), “Is-Ought fallacy!” When Greg Koukl does the same thing in the same article, it’s baptized.

5 - Category Mistake/Error - A category mistake involves the conflation of the properties of two separate domains.  When defenders of the tradition-bound view depart from Romans 1:18 - 32 in order to import Genesis into the text, they inevitably conflate God’s decretal will (a descriptive domain) & God’s moral will (a prescriptive domain). 

For example, on page 181 of his doctoral dissertation, Jared Moore writes that “according to nature” refers to God’s design for male & female bodies - which means that he believes that human anatomy provides a sufficient (or a necessary & sufficient) epistemic warrant for human sexual ethics. In addition, a few pages prior, he refers to Genesis 1 & 2 & God’s design.

He’s wrong.  Following the rules of sound reasoning & Biblical Hermeneutics, the descriptive statement that God created Adam & Eve male & female respectively is not a morals clause that defines sexual attraction to someone of the same sex as masculine or feminine based on the identity of the person to whom someone is attracted.  It’s simply a description of God’s creative fiat in Genesis.  (Incidentally, he also asserts that the statement is person specific, yet to hear him talk about it, it’s general & applies to sexual attraction in general not just to one specific individual). 

The moral will of God is expressed in the command to be fruitful & multiply.   How are gays unable to fulfill that command?  If adoption is valid for heterosexuals but not homosexuals, then on what basis?   His answer seems to be “based on the identity of the prospective parents.”

To love God over & above all else & your neighbor before yourself constitutes the sum & substance of the Law (Mt.22: 36 - 40). (Perfect) love fulfills the Law (Rom. 13:8).   

His entire POV conduces to God condemning homosexuals regardless of their love for Him & each other.   That’s not how God condemns & commends, & it’s the road to spiritual abuse, Situational Ethics, & exercises in bigotry that seek to obviate Matthew 5:41 & Luke 14:33, resulting in LGBTQ people being told they must give up precious things to follow Christ, while Christian bakers, photographers, & magistrates are protected from giving up precious things in order for them to do the same. 

How does God condemn & commend us? According to 1 Sam. 16:7, God looks at the heart, not the appearance.  Jer. 17:10 says substantially the same thing. Mt. 5:28 locates the sin of adultery & all sexual immorality in lustful intent, & James 1:14–15 teaches we form & follow our desires into condemnation & death.  The Bible flat out denies we have libertarian free will. 

It’s also clear from Mt. 22:36 - 40 that the First Table of the Law is summarized as, “Love the LORD with all your heart, might, soul, & strength above everyone & everything else, & the Second Table is summarized as, “Love your neighbor before yourself.”  Everything else hangs on these two sets of principles.   Romans outright states in Chapter 13 that love is the fulfilling of the Law. 

As noted in an earlier article, if God commends & condemns regardless of motive, then that leads directly to Situational Ethics & Works Righteousness. 

In Situational Ethics, people are morally condemned & commended based on their life circumstances, external qualities, &/or other factors that are *not* their internal motives.   David & Sam are told their marriage is a sin because it’s a sin to romantically love a person of the same sex.  That means that God condemns their love not because of their motives, rather because of their sex/gender.  In addition they are also told their relationship is a sin based on whether or not they have a marriage certificate.   As long as the religious bigots among us can withhold a marriage certificate from them, that’s another weapon they have to enforce their unbiblical theology & ethics on the targets of their displeasure. 

David & Sam’s love couldn’t possibly be real love. On what basis?  “Isn’t it obvious?!  They are of the same sex!” is the inevitable reply.  Ergo, their accusers conclude - on the basis of their sex/gender - that David & Sam are failing to love God & neighbor & are in sin.  

How do we know this? According to someone like Publisher at Reformation Charlotte or Jared Moore in the Southern Baptist Convention or some of the men in the PCA General Assembly, the answer is simply “On the basis of their sex/gender.”  They are arguing themselves in vicious circles. 

Aren’t these people Calvinists?  How quickly their allegiance to Volitional Determinism takes a back seat to God condemning people based on the target of their love instead of their love for God & neighbor.  In other words; the motives that underwrite the relationship are overlooked in favor of the objects in the relationship, & David & Sam are judged to be in sin based on the objects of their love, not their love for God & neighbor.  In other words, their motives really don’t matter.  They are in sin regardless of their motives. 

Heterosexual couples receive the same treatment by people who insist that, in order to avoid God’s condemnation, the only morally upright sexual relationship is in the bounds of holy matrimony.   If that’s true, then they too are condemned by God & other accusers on the basis of whether or not they have a marriage certificate.  The accusers’ thought process is the same. 

In Situational Ethics a baker who wishes to bake the cake for David & Sam is told not to do so because doing so would be a sin, based on the identity of the baker’s clients & the meaning of the cake.   There’s a flow chart - if gay, then no cake; if not gay, then serve.   

Matthew 5:41 is ignored in favor of Situational Ethics.  Mt. 5:41 enjoins us to bake the cake & do our best to do so with nonduplicitous motives.  Incidentally, this applies to all Civil Rights issues.  

The end result is Works Righteousness. If God condemns based on externals, then our motives really don’t matter.   God condemns us for baking the cake regardless of our motives & He commends us the same way. This logically applies to every thought, word, & deed.  Ergo, if we just do the requisite amount of spiritual rigamorole, we can earn God’s favor based on our actions regardless of our motives.  Yet the Bible is filled with language about empty feasts & wrongly motivated activity & language describing Israel as a faithless spouse, &, as we earlier observed, lustful intent is what defines sexual immorality both figuratively (Jeremiah & Ezekiel)  & literally (Matthew 5). 

In my next article, I will briefly exposit both Leviticus 18 & Romans 1:18 - 32 in tandem without committing any logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies, & I will do so the way James R. White (to his great commendation) exposited the back end of Romans 8 & the text of Romans 9 when he debated Leighton Flowers.  Until then, “God bless us all, every one”, & “Go, & sin no more.”