Linda Harvey: "Strong feelings are not proof of anything."

Linda Harvey, homophobe extraordinaire, has composed an amateurish flyer “for your older grade school or middle school children about homosexuality”. In the middle of the standard array of homophobic tropes, she makes the following contention:

Some people claim they were “born” homosexual. But there is no well-accepted science that backs up that idea. Strong feelings are not proof of anything.

“Strong feelings are not proof of anything.” I’m going to have to remember that one. Like Brian Brown’s incredible declaration that “Just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn’t mean that you make it illegal”, Harvey says this without a hint of irony or awareness of just how applicable it is. Against all odds, they’ve momentarily achieved a remarkable clarity, but utterly fail to recognize its relevance to their own positions. This one crucial realization essentially negates everything else in her ridiculous pamphlet. For instance:

But once in a while, a man wants to date and love another man, or a woman wants to date and love a woman.

Most cultures long ago decided this was very wrong. And they made rules against it, for a lot of good reasons (more grown-up stuff). First of all, two men can never create their own child. Neither can two women. And two men kissing– well, it just doesn’t seem right. That’s because it isn’t!

Sure, some people might feel that same-sex affection “just doesn’t seem right”. But strong feelings are not proof of anything.

When God made the world, in the beginning, He created just two types of humans: a man and a woman. He told them to join together and become husband and wife (Genesis 2:18-25).

After some time passed, sin came into the world, and people started doing things they shouldn’t. Some of those things involved having homosexual feelings. This sin is described in the Bible, and it’s always wrong. When a few people stubbornly did this anyway, they made life very hard for people in their community. God was not pleased (Genesis 19).

One man and one woman is the way our Creator God designed us from the start.

Linda Harvey might believe two individuals were directly formed by a deity at the beginning of time, and that some of their descendants had their cities orbitally bombarded by that same god for trying to gang-rape some angels… but strong feelings are not proof of anything. Especially not that.

Still, God has standards that don’t change, and that’s a good thing. God is always willing to forgive us if we ask Him.

Yes, she believes in some kind of metaphysics where a certain god will forgive you for things, and this forgiveness is somehow meaningful and important, but strong feelings certainly aren’t proof of that.

God had very, very strong words against homosexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27). So even though it’s not the only sin, it’s still a very serious one.

When Jesus came, He repeated what God said about marriage –that it should only be one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). And we should not forget that Jesus was really God on earth, so He should know!

And yes, some people believe that a certain book actually contains an accurate record of the moral commands of a real deity, that these commands define an enduring and absolute structure of morality, and that one particular man was a human incarnation of that deity… but strong feelings that a religious book is axiomatic, or that someone is literally a god, are not proof of anything.

And, a lot of people who don’t even believe in God agree. From Asia to India to Africa to Latin America, most people now and throughout history agree that being homosexual or “gay” is wrong.

Large numbers of people have historically held a variety of positions like this, such as belief in the inherent inferiority of women, the inequality of certain races, the inhumanity of people with disabilities, and so on. But those strong feelings were not proof of anything.

So if you hear that everyone thinks being “gay” is okay, don’t believe it—even if that person is a grown-up, or even if he leads a church. There are many, many people who still follow God’s teachings, still believe their common sense, and believe that romance, dating and marriage are for a boy and girl, a man and woman.

Their “common sense” might tell them certain groups of people are fundamentally immoral because of some interpretations of some religions which some people hold to be fact – but strong feelings are not proof of anything.

BUT… it’s not right to tell someone that being homosexual is okay. The person may be feeling sad because of being bullied, but never try to make him or feel better by saying “gay” is okay.

Harvey may think that opposing bullying based on sexual orientation is somehow compatible with telling people they’re in direct violation of moral injunctions from the creator of the universe and in need of “forgiveness”, but such feelings are not proof that this is anything but hateful, unnecessary, counterproductive, fictional nonsense.

I think this is my new favorite thing.

Linda Harvey: "Strong feelings are not proof of anything."

25 thoughts on “Linda Harvey: "Strong feelings are not proof of anything."

  1. 1

    When God made the world, in the beginning, He created just two types of humans

    Wonder what color they were. Obviously the SAME color, since the church opposed interracial marriage in the past as fiercely as they do same-sex marriage today.

    And if new colors could arise since then, and whole news languages (that tower thing) why not new sexual orientations and even genders?

    1. 1.1

      Nah, the new colors of skin came later, when God cursed Ham (IIRC; my wingnut theology is a bit shaky). Or maybe that’s the mormons. Anyway, no one was cursed with gayness, so clearly gay people are just doing it because they like being social pariahs at best, and victim statistics at worst. That’s totally why, because just having strong feelings of love and attraction for their partners means nothing.

    2. 1.3

      The question is meaningless, because everything was mono before the Flood.

      We know this because there were no rainbows before then. Since there is no way to prevent light dispersing by wavelength, the only way to keep anything from casting a rainbow before the flood is if there was no such thing as colour until after the Flood.

  2. 3

    That woman is horrid.

    “If someone is being bullied about being gay, go ahead and tell them it’s cause they’re an abomination and God wants them to burn in Hell. When they kill themselves in grief at having no friends to stick up for them, that’s just proof that being gay is harmful.”


  3. 5

    “Most cultures long ago decided this (homosexuality) was very wrong.”

    Lots of wrong in Harvey’s words but this one stood out for me. It’s simply not true. Tolerance of diversity is the hallmark of functional society; most culture with any longevity allowed for people to be people.

  4. 6

    Lack of self-awareness seems to be a defining feature of religious authoritarians and homophobes – I mean, two men kissing doesn’t ‘seem right’ is nothing but a subjective feeling of ‘ick.’ And tradition and historical consensus and ‘common sense’ are just a way of telling people not to think for themselves. If you can’t come up with a reason why something is wrong that isn’t a circular referral to tradition or some religious text, you don’t have a case, period.

    All said, the homophobes are always seem more and more desperate.

  5. 7

    Linda Harvey is despicable. Now that that’s out the way, I’m not sure putting all of our eggs in the born that way basket is the wisest idea. Prevailing scientific consensus is subject to change, and rather than becoming dependent on the current best available knowledge, it seems wiser to me to take a different line. To paraphrase the handegg player, acceptance of homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. This is a much more solid foundation, of which “and we’re pretty sure we’re born this way” can be a fine component.

    1. tE

      yh i think that appeal to nature isnt that satisfying an argument, really

      that doesnt mean we have to tell people they werent “born that way” if they claim so, but being that way _by choice_ shouldnt be devalued along with such claims. cuz that would imply that its still “undesirable” * even tho we “have to accept” it when it “happens”. and thats obvsly shit

      (note that it might still be a compromise preferable to something thats a lot more shit, in circumstances requiring a compromise)

      * in this i claim that the only bad thing about eg not being hetero is heterosexism

        1. tE

          well, thats just accepting their premise (natural = good) and still finding a way to reject their desired conclusion (GSM traits = bad) which is fairly amusing but not particularly important to me

    2. 7.2


      Now that that’s out the way, I’m not sure putting all of our eggs in the born that way basket is the wisest idea.

      (I’m not attacking you with this, because I understand and take no issue with what you’ve said)
      I don’t know what science says about homosexuality.
      I *do* know that I never chose to be a lustful cockmonster. Whatever conclusive evidence might be found someday doesn’t change that fact.

      1. I certainly agree, and don’t want to imply that sexuality is voluntary*. The “its a choice” idea anti’s spout was interesting to examine, it appears that for people like Ted Haggard, Larry Craig or the ex-gay fucktards, they vehemently denied the truth to themselves, effectively choosing to be straight. And as some kind of comeuppance, I recall one of the bigger names in ex-gay bullshit in the last few months admitting publicly that it doesn’t work.

        I’ve read that men with gay maternal uncles are more likely to be gay, as well as the 3rd and so on sons because of hormonal stuff the woman’s body does (I wonder how many quiverfull boys are gay?). In addition to these genetic and non-genetic congenital factors, it might also be able to be cause by something post-natal. And on top of all that, there are documented cases of women having their orientation change later in life (Dan Savage talks about some former lesbian friends of his once in awhile and gets yelled at for it) and that fluidity was presumably involuntary. And those probably aren’t even the only three things.

        *Extreme and unusual situations notwithstanding.

        TL;DR Involuntary doesn’t necessarily mean “born that way”, and it not being prenatal doesn’t mean it’s voluntary.

  6. 10

    “And they made rules against it, for a lot of good reasons (more grown-up stuff).”
    We almost never hear good reasons though.
    smrnda (#6) is perhaps saying something like there is no downside to increased same-sex sex, or increased acceptance, but I think if anti’s made a laundry list it might include increase in Hep C, HIV, anal cancer, parent’s losing sleep cause their son loves Tom and they don’t want kids, friction in social situations like the military.
    I however think that a broad cost/benefit analysis would find acceptance to be a common good. Consequently the state has no compelling interest to pass laws based on my genitals, except in very peculiar situations that I’m having a hard time thinking up right now (perhaps if they need me to seduce an enemy to obtain secrets).

    1. 10.1

      Most of the pragmatic arguments about risk aren’t considering social factors that leads homosexuals to engage in more high risk sexual behavior, and heterosexual behaviors come with many of the same risks. And even on top of that, people should not be compelled to live in a way that is deemed perfectly safe and sanitary by some self-appointed arbiters of mental and physical hygiene. We could all write laundry lists of behaviors that people shouldn’t do, but we tend to try to pass the least restrictions possible. It’s not a huge burden to have to wear a seat belt while driving. It’s a pretty huge burden to have your lifelong relationship put at a legal disadvantage because someone doesn’t like it.

    1. 14.1

      As a thoroughly homosexual woman, I feel the same.

      Lots of gay women prefer m/m porn to the f/f stuff.

      It’s complicated though. For me (and my partner) it essentially boils down to a
      few factors.

      First, male physical arousal is very visible, and can’t be faked. A hard-on is there, and it’s obvious. Then there’s the realism factor. I’ve never seen f/f porn that didn’t seem aimed at the male gaze, or just as fake as hell. “Lesbian” porn does not look like the lesbian sex I’ve had over the years.*

      Second, there is no distraction. No “I wish my boobs/bum/tummy looked like that” or “I wonder if she wishes I looked like that”.

      Also, maybe a part of it is that I don’t perceive that same sense of exploitation, of inequality. m/f is not at all appealing, f/f only a tiny bit more, because female sexuality is typically reduced down to very basic and crude representations.

      *I know there’s f/f porn for and by actual gay women, but it’s not that easy to track down, it’s often representative of the Butch/femme dynamic, and there’s also the issues raised in my second point. See, complicated. M/m is just easier!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *