3) On the Issue of Homosexuality: Gender Dies Hard

Psychologists and biologists alike tell us that man, though consisting of several components, is ultimately unified within himself. His physical life (i.e. his health and purely natural impulses) is deeply and profoundly connected to his psychical life (i.e. his thoughts and emotions). Where one falters, so does the other, and where one thrives, the other is caught up with it. Research shows that emotional duress can actually result in physical infirmity, such as fatigue and illness, and prolonged times of sickness and especially being bed-ridden is connected to depression and distress in the psychical life. On the flip side, a bit of physical exercise and proper diet does wonders for one's mentality.

It would therefore be a fantastic contention to claim that two entirely different physiques could produce the exact same psychologies. But that is exactly what the secular progressives are doing; they claim that men and women - two entirely different anatomies - possess the exact same psychological and emotional makeup. Such a contention clashes with the biologists, the psychologists, and the clear and present evidence, all in one arrogant stroke. As just one example, testosterone, and the lack thereof, produces psychological and emotional effects that are distinct from the effects of estrogen. And yet the former chemical is unique to men and the latter is unique to women.

More to the point, and biology aside, secular progressives cannot, in fact, contend that there is no meaningful distinction between genders without plunging into self-contradiction. The fact of the matter is that they, like everyone else, use gender as a reference point to distinguish between people. The only real distinction between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man is that one is sexually attracted to men and the other is sexually attracted to women. The difference is regarded by the LGBT community (largely containing secular progressives) as meaningful enough; only the latter will be welcomed into their fold. But the only real difference between the two is one of gender: one is sexually attracted to one gender and the other is attracted to the other gender. If there is no meaningful distinction between gender, then there is no meaningful distinction between the heterosexual and the homosexual man. The LGBT community can be sued for arbitrarily discriminating.

Given the biological evidence and the philosophical conundrum of the secular progressive, we conclude that men and women are inherently different.

Allow me to tell you very briefly what I am not saying. I am not saying that men and women are inherently unequal. That is one of the blunders of today's language: lumping the word "difference" into the same category as the word "equal". But, of course, the colors red and blue are quite different without either of them being less valid as colors. That is all that I am trying to say about men and women. They are inherently equal (by proper definition of the word "equal") but also inherently different. Furthermore, as before, I do not intend to give a list of exactly what these differences are. I am only defending the principle that there are differences to be found.

It follows from the hitherto defended conclusion that a man must relate to men differently than he relates to women, since the rules of relating are derived from objective differences between people. We can expect to find rules and principles behind a man's interaction with another man to be different and/or completely missing from his interaction with a woman. What are those rules, you might be itching to find out? I shall have to consider this question at great length.