THE logical inconsistencies in the argument for same-sex marriage, including the contradiction between the idea that sexual “orientation” is innate and the notion that it is fluid (as in transgenderism), have been discussed here before. Dale O’Leary at Aleteia does a particularly good job of summarizing them. She writes:

[T]he arguments presented by those pushing for the redefinition of marriage are not logically consistent. On the one hand, they ignore gender theory, which claims that sexual identity is a social construction, and instead argue that same-sex attraction is natural for them, that they were born that way and couldn’t change, and that they therefore have a human right based on their natures to equal treatment – namely, a right to marry and acquire children. On the other hand, they argue that there are no essential differences between men and women as regards their ability to marry or raise children, and therefore, a child raised by two mothers or two fathers would be as well adjusted as those raised by their biological parents.

She also examines the weak evidence that same-sex attraction is innate and the reasons why some children strongly identify with the opposite sex.

Please follow and like us: