In my thoughts I have uncovered an undeniable fallacy within the gay community itself. To pre-face this let me clarify that I myself am not homosexual nor am I disdainful of those who are. On this matter I tend to be non-interventionist, additionally I will be approaching this from the most objective point position that our subjective minds are capable of. That said, there is a massive inconsistency within the standard doctrine of those who call themselves homosexual. Of all the traits and attributes one could associate with this branch of our society two among them stand out distinctly from the rest.
That is first that homosexuality is not a choice, but a genetically, and biologically linked disposition; part of a person's natural urgings, or as Sigmund Freud would have put it a persons ID. This is of course not present in every individual but in some it does manifest itself, and thusly causes the individual to identify with homosexuals. Thus homosexuality is not the conscious decision of the gay individual but instead just a random aspect of chance based on still ambiguous genetic processes.
Secondly that one should be prideful of their sexuality, to be honest I am not as clear on this one as the first aspect so if someone wants to explain it feel free to do so. However I am sure it has something to do with group identity, and identity politics in general, and though I could delve deep into an analysis of the motivations I would rather not seeing as how it is irrelevant to the point which I am trying to make. These two aspects both that is not a choice, and secondly that one should take pride in that natural disposition are core parts of that particular lifestyle's doctrine. However within these two aspects there is a fatal, and massive inconsistency.
To begin we look at the first of the points I made, that homosexuality is not a choice, this teaching is simply counter productive to the societal movement itself. When an individual resorts to this statement, that it is biological, they are submitting to the assumption that homosexuality is an inherently bad identity, but that it should not be considered their fault, or that they shouldn't be held responsible because it is not their choice. Though this may not be directly stated it is inherently implied within the action itself. Take a simple example discriminatory legislation making homosexual displays illegal is presented to congress. A liberal congressman thusly presents the case that they shouldn't be held responsible because it is not their fault.
The legislation subsequently fails; while it prevented the legislation from being passed, and excused its targets from the un-due harm the legislation would have legitimized; it did nothing to rebuke the notion that homosexuality is in it of itself immoral. This is the societal assumption that the gay community should be focusing on, not whether it is a choice or not. They should be attacking the reasoning behind the aversion to the act itself, rather than who is to blame. One could easily make the claim that there is no reason for it be considered immoral, and that is simply the opinion of the majority. Then pointing out how historically the majority is often wrong about a great deal of things, and that this form of subjective truth should be ignored when it comes to the way we treat others.
The fundamental subjective truth of the majority should be the focus of their movement. However, instead they often accept the premise, that is bad, and that if it were a choice they should be punished; but that since its not a choice they don't deserve blame. Again this admission that it is bad is implied by the act of simply making an excuse. To demonstrate how this acceptance of the premise works lets take another example. An employee is a week late on a project assigned at work, but with just cause, for he was in the hospital for a broken leg. When he returns to work he finds his boss in his office; the boss fires him. Immediately the employee tries to explain how the situation was not his fault, how he had a reason to do as he did.
While he did provide an explanation for why he was late, he did not however argue that the act of being late by a week would normally warrant dismissal. He accepted the premise in that he felt it necessary to then provide an excuse. In many ways homosexuality under the gay community's assumptions is similar to this instance. Rather than argue that being gay is not even a matter concerning society they feel it necessary to instead justify their actions, and claim that they are not the ones at blame.
