ARGUMENTS AND FALLACIES
The logical and legal basis of gay rights
The essay questions the logical and legal basis of natural gays and their rights movements suggesting that this basis is a vulnerable critique as it views gayism as a choice rather than nature. Gay is a choice that one can opt-out of at will. The work also looks into the future of gays in the face of the future development of high-tech conversion therapies as this will undermine the empirical basis for the movements (Thomas, 2018). It, therefore, suggests that gay rights fights be placed on a stronger intellectual footing due to their importance.
The author supports his arguments using the case a star actress Cynthia Nixon of the sex and the city who identifies herself as being gay who chose her sexual orientation among the three alternatives of being straight, gay, or bisexual, Cynthia also supports the idea that being gay is a choice that one can opt out of. This goes against the belief and stands of most gays that are looking at gayism as a choice will definitely render them the difference in the fight for gay rights. The argument goes on to state that the fight for gay rights would only gain validity if gays could not choose their sexual orientation giving homophobic religious rights to dictate the terms of the debate.
The argument maintains the view of moral and intellectual integrity in the case of societies that emphasize the choice of sexual partners and classify them as either being normal or deviant (Savage, 2015). The argument is relevant in the current societies that are hostile to uncommon sexual orientations at a time when many countries around the world are expecting increased cultural diversity in their population brought about by globalization and immigration and should be incorporated as part of multiculturalism campaigns that are gaining prominence in the modern world.
Bias, fallacies, or Thinking errors
The argument draws its bias and thinking error from the fallacy of appeal to authority in which Cynthia Nixon is considered as an authority that determines the course of an argument and the position of the belief. The arguments take an unsound logic by Cynthia that being gay is a choice that one can opt out of and take it as true without empirical support. Cynthia is viewed as the authority on the subject (Locke, 2016). Appeal to authority can be sometimes be supported by facts as the authorities on the subject may be making their arguments on an empirical basis. It can be argued that because of this non-reliance of empirical evidence is a form of non-sequitur fallacy.
Moral and ethical components
The moral goal of the argument is premised on both positions of gay people that attraction feelings are uncontrollable and those that believe they have a choice and a say in their sexual orientation and proposes that both deserve respectful treatment and protection. It posits that romantic relationships deserve to be protected from unfair judgments just like in any case of romance and love of straight relationships (Van Eemeren, 2016). States should not be denying their citizens equal rights before the law regardless of their sexual orientation due to social profiling and stereotypes.
Locke, D. (2016). Perception: And Our Knowledge of the External World. Routledge.
Savage, D. (2015). Ben Carson: Being gay is a choice and prison proves it. The Stranger.
Thomas, J. L. H. (2018). Book Review: Philosophers as Latter-Day Casuists: David Edmonds (ed.), Philosophers Take on the World.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse Acceptance Based on Understanding and Critical Assessment. In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse (pp. 575–594). Springer, Cham.