“Because the gay behavior exists in animals, therefore it must be (natural)” with ‘Natural’ having a few different meanings in different contexts. This argument, referring to some animals’ behavior, is a famous and widespread argument that nearly everyone who accepts such a behavior is appealing to. Today we will take a closer look onto that argument from different viewpoints and examine it away from the influence of the LGBT propaganda. Looking from scientific, medical and moral perspectives we will see how fallacious, irrational, and fragile this argument really is.
Born That Way: A science Argument or Fallacy?
“Because the gay behavior exists in animals, therefore that behavior is (natural), meaning it’s a (biological necessity) or (they are born that way).” This is one of the ways this argument is commonly used, where “natural” in the argument is set to mean “biological” in some way. But let’s see from a scientific point of view is this reasoning scientifically grounded or is it just nonsensical pseudoscience?
Let’s start by taking a step back and just examining scientific facts relating to behaviors in general by asking a few simple questions:
1st Q: If a behavior is prevalent in animals, does it necessarily follow that it was acquired from birth?
2nd Q: Just because a behavior exists, does it necessarily follow that it must be “genetic”?
3rd Q: Just because it exists does it necessarily follow that it is “biologically coerced”?
Obviously not! When we think about it away from the noise, it becomes very clear that the argument has big rational holes in it and isn’t scientific by any means.
Gay behavior exists; well, obviously! No one denied it exists. The claim which is requiring proof is that it is biological. Yet what does anyone who pushes that wild claim do? They put all their efforts into proofing it exists!
Its existence was never the matter of disagreement, and claiming that it is biological doesn’t follow from it by any means! So why is all the efforts focused so much into proving that gay behavior exists? This is a valid question.
Why It’s A Fallacy?
“Just because something “is” doesn’t mean it “ought” to be!” This is a well-known logical fallacy. So, this argument is just an “Is-ought” fallacy where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the givens. Just because gay behavior exists doesn’t mean it ought to exist. It doesn’t mean it’s “natural” or “biological” or “genetic” by any means; that is NOT science and is NOT evidence.
That’s the first point and the first fallacy in this argument, as for the second point, it’s the logical fallacy called “The false comparison”. Because it would have been such a huge facade if the (is-ought) fallacy was used on the humans directly, saying: “Because we do it, we are ought to do it” That fallacy was used on the animals instead, and then got extended to us humans! And that’s another problem. you can’t just generalize things like that! That extension is also fallacious and not necessary in any way, it’s just a false comparison.
What Does Science Say?
In science, any trait or behavior of any species is supposed to be studied “Within that species” for the best results. Dragging the results of studying one species into another isn’t scientifically very accurate or reliable –it is just lazy! Away from the LGBT noise, this rarely happens in science. It’s usually just an introduction to start the research on humans to see if the same results will be found here or not.
Obviously, if any medical treatment was applied on humans directly just because it worked on rats or pigs that would be a major issue. Similarly, if a research on animals came up with any conclusion and then they just jumped into saying that this also a fact in humans with no research it will just be a laughing stock. These kinds of studies you will often see in the form of opening a question, not a conclusion.
So not only is there no real evidence to prove that gay behavior is “Natural” in animals, -all there is, is just that it exists!- even if it was, scientifically this can’t be simply generalized to humans with that irrational comparison! So the argument doesn’t hold up or prove the claim in any way.
In short: Just because gay behavior exists in animals doesn’t mean humans are ought to be so!
Illness And Animals
“Gay behavior is a mental illness”: that was a scientific fact unanimously known and accepted until just 70 years ago. The argument from animals played a major role into removing gay behavior from the list of mental disorders. In that case “Natural” in the argument meant “not an illness” making the claim: (all that exist in animals can’t be an illness because its “natural”)
If we are to write this argument it would look like this:
1- What exists in animals can’t be an illness (Illness is that which doesn’t exist in animals)
2- Gay behavior exists in animals
and you know the conclusion. So, Can you spot the big hole in that argument?
At the time all efforts were focused on proving and validating only the second premise, while treating the first one as if it was an axiom!
That shaky irrational first premise is what we will re-examine. (Illness is that which doesn’t exist in Animals.)
Does Illness Exist in Animals?
Who came up with that “definition” for illness? In which medical reference or dictionary can we find this definition that was treated as an axiomatic truth?! None.
Because no sane person would ever claim that if an illness exists in animals then it isn’t an illness anymore! That’s just pure nonsense! So, where did that idea come from? That definition was fabricated and hidden in the argument by the LGBT propaganda.
What exists in animals can’t be an illness!! Seriously?! So if we found “Cancer” in animals it isn’t an illness anymore and any research to cure it should be outlawed, right? Because it exists in animals, It’s a natural phenomenon! Just because they aren’t like you doesn’t mean they aren’t normal, so don’t say it’s an illness, don’t search for a cure or try to change who they are!
What about the “Suicidal Behavior”?
The same can be said for “Suicidal Behavior”: if the behavior is found in animals that means it isn’t “an illness” but rather a natural phenomenon. So just let them be who they are! They aren’t hurting you or anyone else are they?
And next thing we know is that on the grounds that animals commit suicide too major health organizations are demanding the outlawing and persecutions of any attempts to “cure” those with Suicidal thoughts! The same can be said for “Drug addiction: Illness is that which doesn’t exist in animals, so once we find some animals using drugs it can be said that “it’s natural”.
Following that up with “Addiction is not an illness, it’s only a difference” and Drug addicts are people too. Love wins. Etc etc, the rest of the propaganda. All based on the grounds that “animals do it too, so they are born that way, they can’t help it!”
“What exists in animals can’t be an illness.”
The whole argument for gay behavior is based on this! So if we found any illness in animals, it is no longer an illness (Just like gay behavior). Instead, we have to see it as a natural phenomenon and it should be illegal trying to cure it! Once you think about this premise for just a few seconds you will see how faulty and problematic it is.
Cancer, suicide, drug addiction, is it by any means logical to say they aren’t illnesses anymore just because we found them in animals? Does that make it by any illness “Natural” and scientific research for a cure or a way to change it should be suppressed? Obviously not! That’s just nonsense. Since when does any illness being found in animals mean it is not an illness at all!
The Way of Animals or the Way of God?
The argument from animals is also often used in a moral context with “natural” meaning “okay”. Obviously the scientific meaning of “Natural” gets mixed up with the moral sense of it to give the argument some credibility, but as we broke down that fallacy -let’s look at this moral argument and re-examine it to see if “living like animals” is actually something of any moral value.
Once we look at this argument from just the moral sense and analyze it away from the noise, we realize really fast how groundless it is. I am sure you have noticed that as you were reading the words “Living like animals”.
Since when anything animals do becomes “Okay” simply because “animals do it”! Since when did animals become the moral role models to look up to! Or since when did the moral goal become looking at how animals live and imitate that! Since when did living like animals become such a good thing for the LGBT to be so proud of it!
It’s obvious common-sense to any rational person that NOTHING BECOMES OKAY JUST BECAUSE ANIMALS DO IT, and this is especially true for gay behavior.
How This Argument Aroused?
But how did such an argument –although groundless and senseless- gain such popularity is the more pressing question. And that can be attributed to two main factors:
The first is how vague and confusing the argument itself is. Mixing up the different meanings, and confusing the moral perspective with a scientific one by how the word “Natural” was manipulated. That is a big reason why a senseless argument was confused for a sensible one.
The second reason is especially related to morality itself. Objective morality can be very problematic to establish away from having the true religion and Allah (God) as reference. it’s a dilemma to have any objective morality from a liberal secular sense, morality can never be fixated or established in that world view, which opens the door for it to fluctuate by any effect.
What’s the Meaning of Natural?
The word “Natural” and its lack of a proper definition helps propaganda to spread among a lot of people and get a lot of people to have second thoughts or doubt themselves. After all, it’s really easy to say that something that animals do is “natural” without any proper definition of the word.
Then mixing a bunch of different definitions in the argument and using all of them interchangeably can really cause a lot of confusion. This makes people think of that deliberately induced confusion as strength in the argument itself. when it is all just word play! Once you look closely and properly define this term “Natural” and then analyze the definition, not the term itself, you see how hollow and groundless this argument really is.
The Role of Secular Morality
If we stepped back and looked at how secular morality developed into degradation over the years, we would see that the LGBT propaganda is just an extension of that. Some people are trying to replace God with their own egos so that they can let their desires go rampant, only to find out how in need of God they really are as their lives will have no meaning or value without Him.
The dilemma of Objective morality is a major issue for secularism, liberalism and the western worldview in general where “man” is the center of everything. Because “man’s judgments” -our judgments- aren’t objective in any means. People’s claims and opinions aren’t true or right just because they say them. And that’s the whole reason we are in need of objective “Evidence” and “proofs” outside of ourselves to ground our opinions and know the truth from the false.
But when it comes to morality, searching for such objective reference –Away from Allah- proved to be impossible; that’s the dilemma secularism is facing.
It really says a lot about the degree to which secular morality got degraded if living like animals became the people’s ultimate objective! Look at them!
They are the ones saying they live like animals. They are the ones who argue to live like animals. Also, they are the ones who fight to live like animals. They are the ones bragging nearly on every occasion that they live like animals. They are so proud of living like animals they celebrate it for a month every year. Finally, they are the ones who are demanding that everyone else be proud of living like animals just like they are!