Homosexuality Proves the Existence of God

It is with the greatest modesty that I reveal to the world the following argument which nevertheless has the greatest of implications: the first undeniable proof of the existence of a perfect infallible deity.

The argument starts with the following premise:

•(FALLIBLE): that for all biological processes created by natural selection it is possible for them to fail to produce the effect they were selected for their ability to produce. More accurately, they may fail to produce the effect their ancestors were selected by natural selection for their ability to produce. Either through internal factors such as disease, damage, or deformity, or an uncooperative external environment such as predators or other or environmental factors (the lungs are not designed to work when filled with water or in a vacuum) an item may fail to perform its biological function. Mating displays fail to attract mates, hearts fail to pump blood, the lens of the eye may fail to focus light on the retina, mitochondria may fail to produce energy for the cell, camouflage may fail to make an animal invisible to predators, cancer may cause the lungs to fail to take in oxygen, ducklings may imprint on tractors instead of their mothers, thousands of mental illnesses may make people hear voices that aren’t there, or mistake their wife for a hat, and on and on for every other conceivable biological process.

An infallible process is one that never fails to produce its selected effect, that is either logically or causally incapable of malfunctioning in the above sense.

However:

• (INF) sexual attraction is infallible and incapable of producing attraction in a biologically abnormal way. This is a priori.

•Therefore, sexual attraction is not a biological process and has not been produced by the forces of natural selection.

•A perfect, infallible, process could only have been caused by a perfect infallible cause.

•A perfect, infallible process exists (from INF).

•Therefore, a perfect infallible cause exists aka God.

Thus in the perfection and infallibility of sexual attraction we witness the perfection and infallibility of our creator, as written in Genesis’ claim that we were created in the image of the deity.

As a side argument, also of the greatest importance as it establishes the immortality of the soul, we may add:

•If a mental state is the result of biological processes it is fallible (since from FALLIBLE all biological processes are fallible).

•However, from INF, sexual attraction is infallible and incapable of failing to produce attraction to the selected object of attraction. This is indubitable by the most committed Cartesian. It is our cogito ergo sum–inherently and intrinsically true–our immovable fulcrum by which we may move the Earth.

•Therefore, sexual attraction is not a biological process.

•But sexual attraction is a mental state.

•Therefore, there exists at least one non-biological mental state aka dualism.

We must hereby declare that all physicalists in the academy publicly disavow their physicalism or be removed from their posts and have all academic honors stripped on charges of homophobia. Dualism is the only acceptable doctrine in the academy and polite society.

A critic may attempt to deny INF and claim that sexual attraction is just like any other biological process designed by natural selection and so is indeed capable of failing to work as it was selected for. This should immediately begin to set off homophobia alarm bells and raise our suspicions that such a critic is going to claim that homosexual attraction is just such a case. The proper response to such a proposal is to excommunicate the heretic! The denial of INF is immoral and therefore untrue.

However, the critic may merely claim that all she is proposing is that sexual attraction such as pedophilia or paraphilias are cases of sexual attraction not hooking up the subject with the biologically Normal object, and that heterosexuality and homosexuality are both cases of proper functioning. Suggesting this move must be result in excommunication for the following two reasons. First, the question would be raised as to how this grouping can be justified. Why are pedophilia and paraphilias on one side and homosexuality and heterosexuality on the other? If sexual attraction is treated like any other biological process the question might be raised what was sexual attraction selected to do. For heterosexuality the explanation of how it contributes to reproductive fitness is straightforward: sexual attraction is supposed to produce behavior resulting in sexual intercourse, just as is the case with other imperative mental states such as hunger which is supposed to get the organism to produce behavior resulting in the intake of nutrients. Sexual intercourse in turn was selected because it often enough results in the exchange and combination of genetic material in the process of sexual reproduction.

But then the question is since homosexual attraction can not result in reproduction what was it selected for? Whatever the answer, it must be other than its ability to bring male and female together in reproduction since it sets the object of sexual attraction to be the same sex. If this were so we would then have a case where the same biological process, sexual attraction in this case, would be for one thing in in one group of humans and something different in a second group. There are no other biological processes for which this is true in humans. It would be like saying that the heart could be for pumping blood in one group of people and for something else in others; or that arteries are for moving the nutrients in the blood to the cells in some people and for something else in others. Inference to the best explanation would demand, in the absence of very strong evidence to the contrary, the functional universality of mankind.

Second, if sexual attraction is just like any other biological process and so is fallible it would immediately raise the suspicion that homosexuality itself is a failure of a biological process to work Normally. (See “A Primer on Biological Functions and Norms” what I mean by “Normally”.) The claim that a biological phenomenon is an abNormality or malfunction rests on whether we have a clear case of what a proper functioning process looks like and how it contributes to reproductive success, and whether the phenomenon in question would decrease reproductive fitness. Being attracted to the same sex is about as bad as possible from the standpoint of reproductive success and, again inference to the best explanation would demand that, absent extremely strong evidence to the contrary, something that to all appearances would be disastrous to reproductive fitness not be inferred to have been selected by natural selection.

And so were we to evaluate INF by the methods of empirical biology we would be put in a position that: 1. Absent compelling evidence otherwise the best explanation is the biofunctional universality of mankind (this is a separate claim from the existence of certain biological mechanisms such as lactose tolerance which may be entirely absent in some individuals). And 2. absent compelling evidence otherwise, something that to all appearances ought be not have been selected for by natural selection should not be treated as if it has been so selected. Both of these would call in to question INF, but INF is true as a matter of faith, and as a matter of faith it is not evaluable by the methods of empirical science. And so we must rationally conclude that sexual attraction is perfect and infallible, that it never produces attraction to an abNormal object, that there are no biological abnormalities when it comes to sexual attraction, and that therefore God exists. The inescapable conclusion is that you must either be homophobic or accept the existence of God the Creator. I know where I stand–on the side of angels.