WARNING: LONG POST (you might want to scroll down quickly)
Counting failure.
I was thinking about this the other day; about why Liberals support homosexuality.
1. Grammatical failure. "about why Liberals support homosexuality" is not a complete sentence; therefore, the semicolon is unwarranted.
2. Grammatical failure. "Liberal" is not a proper noun; it should not be capitalized.
3. Logical failure: straw man. Liberals do not "support homosexuality" any more than they "support" any other fact of nature. They support gay rights, not gay existence. The existence of gays is seen as an obvious fact of society.
You see, my reasoning is thus: Liberals, mostly being atheists ,deny the existence of God and seek alternative explanations such as Evolution; in other words, they are Darwinists.
4. Grammatical failure. The word "evolution" is not a proper noun any more than "liberal."
5. Semantic failure. The term "Darwinist" was used when evolution was still a novel concept to distinguish believers in natural selection from those of other modes of evolution, such as Lamarckism. Today it is used almost entirely by creationists who seek to paint scientists as dogmatic adherents to an ancient idea--despite the fact that Darwin provided only one of two key concepts in the modern evolutionary synthesis, the other being mutations, first explained in an evolutionary light by Gregor Mendel.
6. Factual failure. A majority of liberals are not atheists, at least in the United States, the primary focus of Conservapedia. The percentage of political liberals in the United States is around 20%, but the percentage of atheists is less than 5%. Even claiming that all atheists are liberal (which is highly suspect), 75% of liberals remain.
7. Logical failure: misrepresentation of cause and effect. Evolution is not sought as an alternative to theism; rather, acceptance of evolution precedes a lack of belief in God, as evidenced by the large number of theistic evolutionists.
However, hand in hand with Darwinism goes the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. And it's here that their hypocrisy comes up. Homosexuality contributes nothing to the human race; it does nothing to produce a new generation. As such, it should have died out, and the liberals should be saying 'rightly so'.
8. Logical failure: non sequitur. No scientific theory makes moral claims, not even evolution. It does not follow that if the laws of nature predict that things should be one way, humans should attempt to keep it that way. If this logic were sound, flight would be immoral because it denies gravity.
However, they support the homosexual agenda, and I came to two absurd conclusions about this (they were the only ones I could think of). Either the liberals support homosexuality to cover up the hole in 'survival of the fittest', or they support it purely to annoy Christian Conservatives (is it possible that they base their policies on sheer obnoxiousness?).
9. Egotistic failure. Liberal positions do not revolve around yours. To suggest that they do is to suggest that the liberal agenda is simply a rejection of every conservative ideal, which makes no sense; how then would liberals act if they finally won and conservatism were effectively abandoned? Broadly speaking, liberalism is based on the Renaissance ideals of freedom, democracy and human potential--ideas also valued by conservatives, though implemented in different ways.
Thought I would post this here, to see if I can get any more sensible conclusions. Or have I hit this absurd, twisted nail on the head?
(There is no particular failure here apart from general rudeness.)
