Appendix C: Formal Logical Deconstruction of the Problematic Theology

Below is a concise outline of the logic often employed by traditionalist arguments around sexual orientation and identity, along with clear commentary demonstrating where and how these arguments fail logically and empirically:

Argument as Commonly Presented:

  1. Premise A: Sexual orientation is mutable (chosen or changeable).

  2. Premise B: God has created humans strictly according to a binary, heterosexual "template." Any variation from this template represents imperfection or deviation caused by sin.

  3. Premise C (derived from A & B): Since orientation is mutable, identifying as homosexual means actively choosing a deviant or sinful "lifestyle."

  4. Conclusion (derived from A, B & C): Therefore, individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ are actively embracing sin and opposing God’s natural order.

Logical Deconstruction (Analyzing Each Premise):

Premise A: "Sexual orientation is mutable (chosen/changeable)."

  • Factually incorrect: Empirical evidence overwhelmingly disproves the claim that sexual orientation is chosen or easily mutable.

    • Example evidence: American Psychological Association (APA), American Medical Association (AMA), World Health Organization (WHO), and even former "conversion therapy" organizations (Exodus International) explicitly state orientation change attempts are ineffective and harmful.

  • Logical implication: Because this premise is false, any conclusion depending on it becomes inherently invalid.

Premise B: "God created humans according to a binary, heterosexual 'template.'"

  • Theologically incomplete and scientifically inaccurate: While many theological traditions emphasize male-female relationships, biblical scripture never explicitly denies the existence or validity of naturally occurring variations. Intersex individuals, born with physical characteristics of both sexes, provide undeniable proof that human biological diversity exceeds a simple binary template.

  • Logical implication: A rigid interpretation of the human template contradicts observable reality. Any theology based on denial of observable facts risks self-contradiction and harm.

Premise C (derived from A & B): "Identifying as homosexual means actively choosing a deviant or sinful lifestyle."

  • Semantic misunderstanding: Identification ("I am gay") simply describes internal experiences - attractions, emotions, and identity - not chosen behaviors or lifestyle.

  • Logical implication: Even if Premises A and B were correct (which they're not), this conclusion would still rely on a misunderstanding of identity vs. action. Experiencing attraction is involuntary; behaviors are chosen and separate.

Logical Flaws Identified Clearly:

  • Empirical contradiction (Premise A):
    Claims that sexual orientation is mutable contradict overwhelming empirical evidence and expert consensus.

  • Selective theological interpretation (Premise B):
    Ignores clear evidence of naturally occurring human variation, such as Intersex individuals, which directly challenges simplistic theological assumptions about binary gender and sexuality.

  • Semantic confusion (Premise C):
    Misrepresents identity (orientation and attraction) as synonymous with voluntary action and behavior.

  • Logical Fallacy (Motte-and-Bailey fallacy):
    This occurs when the argument switches between easily defended general statements ("we just oppose sin") and indefensible specific claims ("orientation can and should be changed"), obscuring the contradiction.

Possible Origins of This Misunderstanding:

It’s useful to consider why this misunderstanding persists, without accusing pastors or theologians of intentional dishonesty:

  • Philosophical Realism:
    Many traditional Christian doctrines implicitly assume philosophical Realism (the belief in ideal metaphysical "templates"). Any deviation is viewed as sinfully imperfect rather than naturally diverse.

  • Linguistic drift and misunderstanding:
    Over generations, key terms (orientation, sexuality, identity, lifestyle) have become distorted or conflated, unintentionally creating confusion.

  • Misguided pastoral concern:
    Some pastors genuinely fear endorsing behaviors they believe contradict scripture. In an attempt to discourage such behaviors, they unintentionally perpetuate misunderstandings around orientation and identity.

Real-world Consequences of This Flawed Theology:

  • Severe mental health harm: LGBTQ+ individuals raised with these beliefs experience significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide attempts.

  • Spiritual trauma: Viewing one’s inherent attractions and identity as sinful leads to deep spiritual anguish, isolation, and estrangement from faith and community.

  • Family breakdown: Misunderstandings around identity damage relationships, resulting in fractured family bonds and diminished trust.

Conclusion (for Pastoral Reflection):

Given the severity of these misunderstandings, pastors have a moral and theological responsibility to approach this topic with humility, openness to evidence, and compassion.

Reconsidering these premises in the light of clear empirical data, sound theology, and genuine compassion is not about compromising religious beliefs - it's about ensuring our theology remains truthful, coherent, compassionate, and non-harmful.

We respectfully encourage parents and pastors alike to review this logical outline carefully, prayerfully, and with open hearts and minds. The goal, as always, remains clarity, truthfulness, and genuine care for the well-being of all individuals in your congregation and family.